Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904

Harassment from IP address regarding another user
I'm bringing this up on behalf of. The user recieved a strange message from an IP address (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.48.227.216) about her editing habits. Here's the quote:
 * If you even dare go to the video games talk page and ask help from mommy and daddy, I will be VERY angry at you. Seriously, do you really need that talk page to guide you through everything? No, you don't. Don't rely on it ever again

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SSX&diff=prev&oldid=689416406

Angeldeb82 posted on the talk page on Wikiproject Video Games about this message. I wrote this post as soon as I saw it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#SSX_is_getting_more_messed_up_and_convoluted_than_ever.21)

I cannot be humble at this moment if I know that another user is at personal risk. I would like to say that this is a serious message, and something I can not stand for. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Blocked the editor and semi-protected the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Content removal
The User:Dharmadhyaksha removing well sourced content and addind peacock words like "well known". The lead of the article is well writed as per MOS:LEAD and the content is well sourced by RS, include "International Business Times, and also removing television awards as "non-notable" which is not a "internet polls" award. He also tagged fairuse images for deletion as WP:NFCC, when it passed in WP:NFCC#8. Sukriti3 (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any attempt to discuss this at either the article or the user's talk page, let alone evidence that you left a ANI-notice message on the user's talk page as is required (I did that for you). Further this seems to be a content dispute, which is not within the scope of ANI. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Joanna Gunadi
The user has had over 100 disruptive editing notices placed on his talk page since joining in May 2014. He is currently at the last stage of and will not listen to any attempts of reasoning. The main issues I have encountered with the user are: Persisten removal of AfD notices, removal of copyright violation tags, and uploading copyrighted images with no information as to the original author or a fair use rationale (example). I feel as if keeping him here any longer would not result in anything good. -rayukk &#124; talk 15:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This last edit occured just seconds ago and after I notified him of this discussion here! - rayukk &#124; talk 15:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem may be that you are warning the user for deleting AFD templates from the page, but that's not what they're doing. They're removing maintenance templates, which is a lesser (although still annoying) problem. However, since the template in question points out copyright violation, you should really just tag the page in question for db-copyvio. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Just as a guess, I'd think Joanna is a she, not a he. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I have placed the corresponding template on her ;) talk page (section). What are your thoughts on how to proceed, since the other issues still remain and keep piling (there is a new unfree file entry on the user's talk page)? Also, the user has removed the copyvio template again (diff). I would recommend a temporary block, but then again, I'm not an admin.. --rayukk &#124; talk 16:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just removed several paragraphs of material lifted directly from a newspaper article and will appropriately comment at the article and user Talk pages. Reinstatement of the material would call for a block, IMHO.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I quickly found additional copy / paste copyvios and likewise blanked them - with 2100 edits and 195 pages created, this looks like it may be a bigger problem that I can (am willing to) address. The problem is compounded by the editor's complete lack of communication - not one of those 2100 edits is to a Talk page.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to say this is just a case of a new editor making newbie mistakes, but the 2000 edits tell another story, likewise, I don't think blocking should be the answer, as I firmly believe this user can learn. Weegeerunner (1 year of foolishness)chat it up 17:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The user may be able to learn but in order for them to do that they need to engage in conversation, with the shear number of warnings and issues and continued defiance of all advice given. A short block may be warranted to hopefully encourage them to engage in the conversation. Give them some time to stop look at what they are doing and hopefully take some advice.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When you put it that way, maybe a block is going to help. Weegeerunner (1 year of foolishness)chat it up 17:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , there may also be translational copyvio problems here – compare, for example, this new page with this Google translation. It looks as if all contributions by this editor will need to be reviewed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I pretty quickly found 3 or 4 film synopses that had been copied and translated from existing foreign language sites. I've blanked those and added the templates to the User and article Talk pages.  I also asked the editor to please comment on the potential scope of this problem.  If she evidences her presence by continuing to edit, and doesn't respond, I plan to head over to Contributor copyright investigations and get the ball rolling there.  I suspect I've just id'd 5 of quite a few problem articles.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly; you just got there much faster than I did! Sorry to be telling you what you already knew. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No harm, and at least in my case, sometimes what I don't know is not always obvious. Input is welcome.  Thanks!  JohnInDC (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and request an investigation - there's a lot of material there, and the odds that the rest of it is clean are quite small. I would suggest that we wait 24 or 36 hours and see what happens. Really the only thing for an admin to do here would be to impose a block if she keeps adding copyrighted material after all the new warnings on her Talk page (plus of course the notification of the CCI matter). JohnInDC (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey JohnInDC, I thought you were an admin. Perhaps you should do something about that? :) -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness, then for sure I'd have to get a user page! (Flippancy aside, I do appreciate the comment - thanks!)  JohnInDC (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I will watch the user for further copy vio and will block if I see any. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I believe this is the right procedure since the user has been sufficiently warned. For the sake of accuracy, I'd also like to point out the user has been blocked twice for removal of tags. (block log). --rayukk &#124; talk 08:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * She did it again, adding back copyrighted material to Haji Backpacker. --rayukk &#124; talk 11:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Block of DHeyward
was blocked by eight hours after posting comments at. The comments were deleted by. HJ Mitchell did not contact DHeyward, nor did Gamaliel...but nevertheless, the block was implemented as an arbcom enforcement discretionary sanction and logged. Since this was never reported to AE, this has all the appearances of a behind the scenes enforcement action. I have been told that there may have been no arbitration violation as no one was named. HJ Mitchell has been unresponsive to notes and email.--MONGO 22:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There was enough information in that edit to make the target clearly identifiable. There is no question in my mind this was a topic ban violation.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So you emailed HJ Mitchell to do the block?--MONGO 22:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that this is a oneway interaction ban imposed by you. I can't see the deleted posts so waiting for neutral administrators to chime in and clarify if this was indeed a breech of your sanction.--MONGO 22:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually a topic ban. I wanted them to be able to interact on the subject of edits; since they are editing a number of the same articles I thought an IBAN would cause a thousand new reports at AE. They simply can't talk about one another.  It's a simple restriction that DHeyward has repeatedly violated.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I cant see the edits, and never thought your ban implimentation was well thought out, so all we're left with is your overly strict misrepresentation of the facts.--MONGO 22:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Any admin can go and see for themselves if they think he was violating the ban or not.  It's not an ideal ban I came up with, but it has turned down the volume quite a bit in my opinion.  Anyone can suggest something else at AE.  I'll gladly cancel it to make way for a better solution.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a terrible failure to assume good faith. The lack of use of AE is not an indication of "behind the scenes" anything. I suggest you get some evidence before making accusations. AE is not mandatory, it is generally used when the result is not obvious. HighInBC 22:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Its an opinion made by the admin that implimented the topic ban and another that previously blocked DHeyward and had his block overturned.--MONGO 22:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And which part of that is beyond administrative discretion? Both implementing a topic ban and previously blocking someone are administrative actions and don't make either of them involved. How does that justify you suggesting a hidden agenda by suggesting "behind the scenes" activity without evidence? The block may need review but your baseless accusations are not acceptable. HighInBC 22:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Block performed based on hidden edits eight hours after the fact by now unavailable admin=an issue. If admins can't be around to justify their actions shortly after they make them then that's an issue.--MONGO 23:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As much as I am loathe to agree with MONGO, my arch-nemesis (:-), I would like to see DHeyward treated with more respect. If there was a breach, it was minor and the block should be lifted for time served. If I had to guess, MB probably inserted himself into another discussion making it more difficult to avoid the sanction. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

CFCF gaming changes to MEDRS guideline
There is currently a dispute at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) regarding the meaning and importance of the word "biomedical" in the guideline WP:MEDRS.

took it upon themselves to edit the guideline towards their preferred interpretation while discussion on this exact issue was ongoing, and consensus was completely unclear. I have asked him to self-revert these changes, to which he has not responded.

He has, however, since gone on to quote the text he had just changed in support of his position in a content dispute at Talk:Domestic_violence_against_men. Per WP:TALKFIRST this should be considered WP:GAMING. I am not asking for any specific outcome, but my hope is that greater attention from the community will at least convince CFCF that he may not act unilaterally in this matter. Rhoark (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The change from medical to biomedical was made in July of this year and seems to have snuck under the radar . The recent changes were merely restoration to the original interpretation of policy, and are not intended to do anything beyond clarify the position of the guideline. Of note is that the essay Biomedical information has been present in the lede for the entire duration of this discussion. Consensus is clear, and I have responded to requests by this user by stating that the changes are fully due and supported. Multiple discussions can be found, notably at WT:MEDRS. CFCF   💌 📧 18:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , With respect, the change in July was from medical to biomedical; the change made in this edit is from biomedical to biomedical and health - a significant expansion on the scope in July - and the locus of the current dispute referred to by above. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Further to this, I invite editors to examine the differences between the July version & the most current. I note numerous removal of biomedical, and corresponding insertion of health where it was not present in July. Given that "health" is being proposed to cover all aspects of public health, not simply "medical information", I suggest that this is a sufficient expansion of scope. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Further to this, note that, despite Ryk72's claim, "health" and/or "medical" was in place of "biomedical" in various places in July. The guideline had been stable in that respect. This was changed in August, as seen with this and this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't know that this really needs an ANI report at this point, especially since there are currently ongoing discussions at the MEDRS talk page, Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and the talk pages of Domestic violence and Domestic violence against men. At this point, I assume CF's participation in the discussions and edits to the guideline are made in good faith, as are yours Rhoark.  But there is obviously some misunderstanding about the guideline and its application -CF seems to be saying that all content related to statistics and prevalence must be sourced according to MEDRS and that is just wrong, and it's being used to exclude content that is reliably sourced.  I think it's time for a full bore RfC on the MEDRS guideline and the scope of its application.  I have never started an RfC before, but I can try to do that - or someone else can? Minor4th  21:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the section is not to settle any questions about MEDRS, but to address the behavior of changing a guideline in order to play it as a trump card in an existing content dispute. The fact that it read similarly three months ago is not sufficient justification. If it "flew under the radar" then, that's because it was not actively disputed at that time. The bottom line is that edits to policy and guideline pages need to come from consensus, not be used to strongarm consensus. Rhoark (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: CFCF is correct; like I recently stated, he was simply restoring the guideline to the WP:STATUSQUO. Like I also noted at the WP:MEDRS talk page, to MastCell, who recognized the same thing, "[Y]our comment touches on what I stated above about men's rights editors; the domestic violence articles, and similarly related sex/gender medical articles (such as reproductive coercion), have been burdened by these editors wanting to forgo higher-quality sources so that they can push a particular POV (in the case of the domestic violence material, it's usually the POV that men are affected by domestic violence more than women are or more so, or that there are just as many women who commit domestic violence as there men who do so). A lot of editors are drained because of this, and many have walked away from these articles because of this. We have Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, but that isn't always enough, especially considering that these editors commonly pop back up with new registered accounts and/or coordinate off-Wiki to gang up on Wikipedia editors." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is not the place to recapitulate the whole MEDRS discussion. I have to state the correction though that you are the one pushing sources that do not meet MEDRS recommendations. There is nothing about the way the guideline was edited three months ago that gives license to ignore talk page consensus right now. Rhoark (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that I am "the one pushing sources that do not meet MEDRS recommendations" is incorrect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And this thread is a complete waste of time. CFCF will not be blocked or sanctioned for restoring the guideline to the WP:STATUSQUO. And this noticeboard is not for such disagreements. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A person who is advocating a particular interpretation of a Wikipedia policy and seeing significant opposition should never be allowed to edit the policy so that it supports his interpretation while the discussion is ongoing. CFCF should be warned, and if he does it again, blocked. Please note that Flyer22 Reborn advocates the same contentious interpretation of policy that CFCF does, and thus may be biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Needless to state, my view contrasts Guy Macon's view. He is yet another editor from the contentious group trying to get CFCF sanctioned. I invited him to report me here at WP:ANI, but, alas, no such report was filed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And as I keep reminding Guy Macon, WP:MEDRS is a guideline; it is not a policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "They" act upon it as if it is holier than the Bible. And it is often misused to shut out inconvenient parts like positive sources about organic subjects. The Banner talk 08:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My main concern about applying MEDRS to "non-biological medicine" or "anything related to human health" is that MEDRS was written to cover subjects like whether cholesterol-lowering drugs improve lifespan. It was not written to cover basic safety (please look both ways before crossing the street), refrigeration (please don't drink spoiled milk), car wrecks (bad for your health!), discrimination and poverty (both of which are also bad for your health).  When we say "health", some people then misunderstand it as being the primary guideline for all of these subjects.  When we say "biomedical", they are more likely to get it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am with WhatamIdoing 100% on this one (great minds think alike...). The key here is that a Wikipedia reader can reasonably be expected to use our site when deciding whether whether to accept a doctor's advice to take cholesterol-lowering drugs. Because of this, any information we give out on cholesterol-lowering drugs must be referenced to the higher MEDRS standard. Readers can not reasonably be expected to use our pages on safety, refrigeration, car wrecks, discrimination or poverty to help them to make medical decisions, even though, as WhatamIdoing correctly pointed out, they all have major effects on public health. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the scope of the WikiProject Med, and artificial line is being drawn between different approaches to addressing health. Public health topics like car crashes, occupational safety, domestic violence, sanitation, and disasters & emergency recovery efforts have evidenced based research in systematic reviews. It is most important for national guidelines, and people making organizational level decisions to use evidenced based content when writing these policies and guidelines. And Wikipedia articles need to reflect this high standard, too. So, MEDRS is relevant in public topics, too. For example Cochrane has a research study group called Work whose scope is to study "exposure at work to agents adverse to health, working behaviour adverse to health, occupational and work-related diseases or disorders, occupational disability or sick leave, occupational injuries and health promotion at the workplace. These interventions can be labeled prevention, treatment, management or rehabilitation."
 * In a few weeks, a group of Wikipedia medical editors are meeting in Washington, DC with US Federal agencies to discuss how to work together to get their research on to Wikipedia. There are already two Wikipedian in Residence at CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
 * Additionally, Wikipedia readers are not just consumers but health care professionals, students, and policy makers, and leaders. Wikipedia content is the starting place for many of them looking for a quick reference. We are doing them a disservice if we don't maintain a high level of quality across all health related topics. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * High quality is good, but MEDRS means excluding information. For example, most of DNA methylation or exercise would simply be deleted if all health-related claims had to be sourced by MEDRS. That doesn't help researchers or the general public. Rhoark (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing in those two articles would need to be excluded, since all of it can be replaced by WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. For example, WP:MEDDATE states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." It is also clear that newer is not necessarily better. If the older source is better, then we go with that, as medical editors commonly do at the Circumcision article. Furthermore, the Physical exercise article certainly commonly adheres to WP:MEDRS; Doc James takes care of that article, and Talk:Physical exercise is tagged with the WP:Med banner. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In practice, most of what's in those articles would be excluded, because several of MEDRS' enforcers have difficulty understanding how that sentence applies. There is also a persistent misperception that the sentence which begins "ideal sources include" means "you may only use the following types of sources".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree there since I can't imagine any WP:MEDRS enforcer removing most of the content from those two articles. Doc James is a MEDRS enforcer, for example, and I don't see where he's hacked away from the Physical exercise article in a ridiculous fashion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, though, that "There is also a persistent misperception that the sentence which begins 'ideal sources include' means 'you may only use the following types of sources'." I've seen that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User:FloNight, this is your personal reminder that it doesn't matter what WikiProject Medicine's scope is (available at WP:MEDA, if anyone cares; note that I wrote most of it and am probably still the person best qualified to answer any questions about it), because MEDRS belongs to the whole community, exactly like WP:RS does. MEDRS is a community guideline, not a WikiProject WP:Advice page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Call for administrator intervention
A person who is advocating a particular interpretation of a Wikipedia guideline and seeing significant opposition should not be allowed to edit the guideline so that it supports his interpretation while the discussion is ongoing. CFCF should be warned, and if he does it again, blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole case is an attempt to missinterpret consensus by users engaged in pushing questionable content at Domestic violence against men, and an attempt to gain an advantage in a content-dispute by "scaring away" other editors. These editors have tag-teamed against the proper supported consensus that can be seen in the discussion and are not engaging in constructive discussion as present in the active RfC. CFCF   💌 📧 12:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep using the word consensus, but I don't think it means what you think it means. Rhoark (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have warned all involved here. What I am wondering is why this has been broken up into two section? Also "health" was used in the guideline before and someone took it out with a lack of discussion. So it is sort of murky what is the long standing consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked, the word "health" was still in the guideline—about twenty-five (25) times. Having the word on the page 25 times is hardly the result of "someone taking it out".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Lord & Taylor editor, back as an anon again
The Lord & Taylor COI editor's IPv4 address remains blocked, but they now have a new IPv6 address. Compare ("The Fall 2015 campaign includes collections by Givenchy ...") with  ("The Fall 2015 campaign includes collections by Givenchy ..."). They've also been editing Crossgates Mall (which is "anchored by Lord & Taylor") to remove negative information. The edits aren't that bad, but they're all happy talk PR, and trying to do via IPv6 what you were blocked for on IPv4 is clear block evasion. John Nagle (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - previously blocked
 * - current issue
 * - another IP
 * - another IPv6 address.
 * Previous AN/I history: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive901
 * Previous AN/I history: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive902
 * Previous AN/I history: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive902
 * Update: another IP,, with exactly the same edit.. Also another related but not too bad edit from a new IPv6 address.. Suggest semi-protection on Lord & Taylor, since they seem to have a large supply of IP addresses. John Nagle (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Semied 4 months. --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 09:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP, claiming to be author David Bret
, who claims to be David Bret, has made a legal threat in this diff, in response to an AFD for his article. David has previously been blocked for a legal threat in 2011. -- ferret (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone throw that sock back in the drawer, please.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 03:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , Editing logged out, particularly by a very occasional editor, isn't socking. isn't currently blocked, so this isn't block evasion. The legal threat is present,m but very mild IMO. The poster, assuming it to be bret as claimed, doesn't really understand how notability works here (in which he is far from alone among editors here) and is understandably concerned about the BLP of which he is (or claims to be) the subject. An AfD is in progress on David Bret, and I don't see any admin action needed here until that is ready to close. DES (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I had already blocked the IP for disruption before seeing this thread (I saw the ANI notice when placing the block notice). I had seen the uncivil posts (borderline NPA), then saw the legal threat in an earlier edit. If others disagree with the block, no need to review with me further should they request unblock. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the block. It is clearly a legal threat in my eyes (even if your block was placed due to other reasons).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You know, if you or I were David Bret, we'd be royally pissed off about the way we'd been treated here for yours. He may not be be a great writer, but his works get ample coverage, even if that coverage is not the easiest to find online. It took less than a minute for me to turn up a discussion from 2008 where an editor falsely claimed his books weren't reviewed in standard outlets like Kirkus. Of course, they had been. If editors here didn't make uninformed, derisive or derogatory comments about article subjects, we wouldn't get anywhere near as many outbursts like the one complained of. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How people feel about articles written about them is not our problem. If someone has a problem with a policy-compliant article, they need to take it up with the sources of the article. And if the article isn't policy-compliant, it should be fixed regardless of the wishes of its subject. Bobby Tables (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bobby, screw those people whose lives are affected by our inaccurate articles about them. They should take it up with someone else, and stop bothering us. We are, after all, infallible, and incapable of doing harm, inadvertently or otherwise. Sheesh... I do so hope that sort of attitude is now very "last century" here. Shame on you. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

GentleCollapse16

 * User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) - This user continually adds information without sources, removes sourced information, implements original research, baits other users, aggressively attacks others. They have been warned multiple times on their talk page, and even blocked in the past. Examples include removal of cited and accepted info and implementation of original research for the Lana Del Rey page. When met with rules by other users, this user becomes incredibly aggressive and projects onto others. Past incidents include vandalism on art rock, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Axis: Bold as Love - which resulted in a ban after repeated incidents.  Ilovetati91 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Interested users might want to ' see this, it looks like ILovetati91 and GentleCollapse16 are edit warring on genre, there's already a discussion on the talk page about this, and it looks like GentleCollapse16 is being reasonable. I recommend this be closed at forum shopping.  Kosh Vorlon   18:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reasonable, yet users' valid points are constantly deterred through personal attacks and evasion? The page's vandalism needs to be addressed, and it's not limited to the genre. Please see the page's edit history. GentleCollapse16 has been banned multiple times due to this exact type of editing patterns and it has extended to a page in which a significant amount of prior work has been put into reversing vandalism and original research already. ilovetati91 (talk) 18:16 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have checked some of GentleCollapse16's edits and can find no vandalism or personal attacks. Can you please provide examples of where both of these occurred? Also, I have made a formal notification that this thread has been opened (you should have done this yourself). Also, GentleCollapse16 has not been "banned multiple times", the editor has been blocked once only, for 31 hours, in August 2015. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I agree. I think, also, it would be reasonable to expect to provide an answer to your questions. Bringing a user to ANI is serious, and upsetting for the "accused".  should withdraw or apologise, or support this with diffs.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

History of Islam
Apologies for bringing this here, but this appears to go beyond a content dispute, and involves ownership of a major and potentially contentious article. The above account is persistent in removing sourced content, often adding unsourced and possibly original research text in its place. They are, in effect, eviscerating a major article without seeking, let alone establishing, consensus. Thanks for any insight that can be provided. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with OP's assessment. I requested temporary pending changes protection of the article to at least try to slow things down. Request declined. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   02:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've also brought this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam since History of Islam is a top-priority article. Arman ad60 appears somewhat willing to use the talk page, but large-scale changes like this should really be backed up by consensus. clpo13(talk) 02:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm being tactful in my report. I suspect the endgame will be a mass reversion to a 'last good version', but would welcome a discussion that integrates thoughtful revisions. Not my bailiwick, but I've edited here long enough to know when WP:OWNERSHIP is an issue, especially on a major theme. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Very tactful. Requesting some form of page protection if the edits should continue would certainly be one way to bring more discusion to the talk page. John Carter (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Statement by Arman ad60

I have made the article History of Islam. Well I have to say here something :

1. I want to change the entire article. For this obviously I have to remove a huge part and I have to do this rapidly. I have not changed the entire article altogether. I am removing all the materials part by part. So I dont think I have violated any law.

2. This article is not really a good one. It is a class-C article. So I dont think I have done any harm to this article.

3. You are speaking about source. It needs time to go to the webstie and bring back the link. It is really a strainious job to write the articles, make tables and the sources. I havent given the maps, tables and sources yet. I need some more time. You have to wait for some time. Please be patient.

4. I have removed sourced materials? Well if I remove some thing there will obviously be some source.Well I have removed something, then I will add something. When I will add something I will add sources with them. So just be patient.

5. You have accused me of not talking properly. I have talked enough in the talk pages. I have given every kind of logic for all my changes. You have not given any proper logic and are just accusing me of ruining the article.

6. You have not clearified to me which part I should change. You are only takling about rules and regulations, sources and consensus. You should tell me which empire of mine has problem, which empire I should remove or which empire I should improve.

7. You may be anxious about my removal of huge part of the article. I will add something with this later.I have already removed many parts from the article and added many parts later. I will fill in the vacuuam created from my removal. Dont worry at the end of my editing the size of the article will be the same.

8. There are many Muslim editors in this article. They have written in this article. They are watching everything. They have not complained about anything. So I think you should not also have any problem with that.

9. Those people I have talked with here are all Christians. I dont think they have such a great idea about Islam. Well if any Muslim guy comes forward and tells me about his problem I will accept it.Arman ad60 (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yup: those last two bullets are rather alarming signs of ownership misconceptions.-- Elmidae  06:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's certainly a problem. But the main problem is that I don't think Arman ad60 understands the article or what he is doing. I've just restored a section discussing the early sources that he removed on the grounds that "Because early sources are not considered reliable. there are hundreds of modern sources in the end. It will take time to remove this section." It seems very appropriate for an article on history to discuss the earliest sources on the subject, whether or not they are now considered reliable. I don't understand his language at times - how can a table be 'dirty'? And removing sourced material and saying "Why not if I'm going to add new sourced material" isn't a good reason either.Doug Weller (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've restored the earlier version entirely as I can see that much of the new material is copied - probably from our own articles (I'd need to check to see that the copied text wasn't copyvio also) but without attribution this is of course copyvio. Doug Weller (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You are free to create a draft of the page in your user space, like at User:Arman ad60/History of Islam, and make any changes you might want to there, and perhaps later propose revising the article along the lines of your draft later. I would suggest that the best place to start with any changes you might wish to propose is some of the leading reference works relating to Islam or Islamic culture. You should find at least a few at Bibliography of encyclopedias: religion. Reference overview sources like the ones listed there tend to be the best indicators we have for matters like WP:WEIGHT and similar. John Carter (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Holy mackerel, the user has done nothing on Wikipedia except repeatedly remove mass amounts of material from History of Islam. A topic ban is certainly indicated. In fact, a block, even an indefinite one given the TP warnings that have been posted, would probably be even better. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , you did not make the article History of Islam. The article was created in 2001, 14 years before you started editing on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're off by 10 years. I suspect due to a typo. Nice to know: the second edit in the article is by Jimbo himself... Kleuske (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No empires should be removed. The article is a History of Islam, not of a particular branch or caliphate.
 * Secondly I am concerned with the editor's grasp of English. This level of ability is fine for writing non-contentious articles which can be rapidly cleaned up by a copy-editor, but not so good for working on an established core article.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Oppose topic ban, neutral-but-leaning-support on short block Softlavender &co may well be right on the substance. But TBANning an SPA from the only topic they have ever edited is pointless, and clogging up the logs on WP:RESTRICT with these kind of stuff is worse. I am not prepared to make a judgement on whether it is indef-worthy without looking more deeply into the substance. Certainly their edits to the article are disruptive, but they don't seem to be malicious and seem to be engaged in good-faith "trimming" that to them makes the article more readable but to everyone else removes worthwhile information. There has been almost no discussion, either the article or his user talk page, until this week -- has anyone even tried politely telling Arman ad60 that his edits are not helpful? I notice he asked a question on the talk page in August and was ignored. I'm a strong believer in strict enforcement of WP:CIR when a user is repeatedly told their edits are disruptive and they make no attempt to change, but in this case ANI seems to have been treated as a first resort. If they are POV-pushing or the like, giving them warning that their edits are disruptive, then giving a 24 hour block next time they violate the warning, then we will know once the block expires. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But for the record, I do find several points in the user's above "statement" to be very problematic, especially the last point. Making assumptions about other users' religious affiliations, and those users being in some way "biased" based solely on their religious affiliation, is completely inappropriate -- whether it is a radical atheist assuming that users who consider Jesus of Nazareth to have been a historical figure are all "Christians", a Christian fundamentalist assuming that users who think the word "mythology" can be applied to anything in the Bible are all radical atheists, or anything else of the sort. The user should take this back and apologize. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A lot of the material added by the editor (and in his sandbox) is copyvio. He denies copying any of it but I've spent far too much time documenting it on the talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Collateral damage from rangeblock

 * Formerly i think i've undergone an admin's misuse NE Ent 23:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

hi everyone, i'm here because i think i've undergone an admin's misuse as you've read in the title. the situation's this: this morning i've noticed that my ip address was blocked because it had the same range of another user who was blocked 5 days ago for edit warring. you've got to know that the ip range 151.x is largely common in all 8 regions of northern italy, where i live, and thousands of persons use this very ip range. i've made an unblocking request at 9 am explaining what i've just explained here and i think i've been polite enough. after 3 hours no answers yes, so i've made another request with another ip of the same range, since it's a dynamic ip or we weren't talking about ranges, and after almost 3 more hours the 3rd request with one more ip. now, and i admit this was my fault, i checked for an answer about 20 minutes before making my 3rd request, but didn't check again right before sending the request: in fact, i'd received an answer by User:Ohnoitsjamie, which was this: "You'll need to find another IP range to edit from if you wish to edit constructively.". i felt teased when i've read that answer, so i've added some text to my last request. how am i expected to find another ip range? seriously, how? have i got to crack one of my neighbours' wi-fi? i could use open proxies, but i know it's against rules, and the last think i've ever wanted on wikipedia is going against rules. in order to explain better why i thought my, and not only my, ip range should've been unblocked i've also looked for the user who was first blocked searching in pages, talk and contributions of the admin who made the block, User:MSGJ: the user was blocked for edit warring on the page Mafia which... had already been protected for 2 weeks! honestly, i believe that under these circumstances keeping that range block is totally wrong, there's no reasonable point to prevent thousands of italians from making constructive edits to wikipedia just because of one stupid guy who's now not able to make edit wars again on that page even if he wants. i quote from Guide to appealing blocks: "the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption" (the page was protected); "that your conduct...is not connected in any way with the block (this can happen if a block is aimed at resolving a separate situation and you are unintentionally blocked as a result because you use the same IP range)". but that's not the reason why i'm writing here. the reason is the answer to my 3rd request: "The block has been extended to two weeks for wasting people's time with repeating the same request across different IP addresses.". where on wikipedia is written that a block can be extended if i've repeated an unblock request??? and i've repeated it not because i've read the answer "no" and didn't agree with that, but because after 3 hours first and then after almost 3 more hours i hadn't received any answers. indeed, when i've finally read the answer, i didn't made a new request, i just added some text to my last request, luckily with the same ip. i'm convinced that what i've undergone because of admin ohnoitsjamie it's a misuse, or even an abuse. not only for me, but also for all people who share this ip range. i'm appealing to you, admins, and your common sense and goodwill to at least shorten the block back to what it was before ohnoitsjamie's intervention, please. i had to create an account to write this, but i won't use it to edit anything, just to eventually discuss here if there's anything to discuss about. i trust wikipedia and i want to go on trusting it. thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centocinquantuno (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the username! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Am I understanding this problem correctly? User wants an ip range unblocked so that he can edit as an ip, when in possession of a perfectly good username. Seems daft. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Too long, difficult to read, except that maybe User:Roxy the dog has it right, in which case the request is silly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough: thanks :) Robert McClenon Roxy the dog: i'll explain my point in 3 points: Centocinquantuno (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * admin ohnoitsjamie extended the block because i made 3 requests, but: first, i've been left without an answer for almost 6 hours and that's the only reason i've done 2 more requests (not too many, on my humble opinion); second, i read on wikipedia: "If you make repeated invalid or offensive unblock requests, your talk page access may be revoked which makes it even more difficult to request unblocking." "If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.", which means both that one's supposed to keep requesting, invalidly/unconvincingly or offensively/disruptively, after beeing answered, and that the punishment is being prevented from making new requests on one's page, not extending the block: "The block has been extended to two weeks for wasting people's time with repeating the same request across different IP addresses." is not a reason provided by wikipedia to block someone, unless we want to vote to change rules
 * as i've said when i've made the 3 requests (identical, copy-paste), there're thousand of persons who can't edit wikipedia just because they share one troll's ip range, furthermore the cause of the block is no more (the page was protected one day after the beginning of the block), so keeping all those people blocked is completely wrong, from my point of view
 * i've created this account just to be able to edit this page, i seldom come on wikipedia to make edits, i noticed the block 5 days after it'd started, i'd never created an account before because i don't like social network stuff such as nicks or avatars. this is maybe the weakest point, but aren't the 1st and the 2nd sufficient?
 * Centocinquantuno, there is a bright yellow box at the top of the page when you post a complaint here that says you must notify the editor you are talking about. You didn't do so, so I've informed Ohnoitsjamie of this discussion. Perhaps he can provide some answers to you about your situation.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the contributions on the /17 that is blocked and it appears to be a necessary block. Multiple IPs on the range have been making disruptive edits to not only Mafia but other articles related to the subject. There are very few productive edits by IPs on the range in the last two weeks. -- Versa geek  20:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My analysis of the edits on the /17 was incorrect, that will teach me to examine larger samples before drawing conclusions. -- Versa geek  23:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You could say that about almost any IP range over a given two week period. A range block here is too broad, block the individual IPs. What's the point, we all know how this will play out:
 * The editor (who only created their account to report a genuine problem) will be blocked for block-evasion
 * the IP range will remain blocked, disadvantaging the encyclopedia and discouraging new editors
 * We'll all pat ourselves on the back "good job, good job"
 * Just a normal day at wikipedia. 107.107.58.249 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the OP seriously suggesting that thousands of users are blocked because the entire range 151.x is blocked? Akld guy (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Liz: i'm sorry for not reading the box, i'd never written on this page before, thank you very much for informing him already, i want to listen to what he'll say, so far the only things he told me were "You'll need to find another IP range to edit from if you wish to edit constructively." (thanks for making fun of me) and "The block has been extended to two weeks for wasting people's time with repeating the same request across different IP addresses." (not provided by wikipedia rules at all). Versageek: i didn't look at every ip within that range on the page about mafia, actually i didn't think about it, but you were right to do so, and i've just do it too. i haven't found any other disruptive edits in the last 2 weeks but the edit warring about mafia, and the only related edits were made on both mafia and users' talk pages, not disruptive anyway, but if you've really seen disruptive edits involving other articles related to the subject i'm asking you to please tell me which ones, i may say that you're right but i'd like to see them before. 107.107.58.249: thanks for supporting me, i really hope that's not the way this story'll end, i've always had a good consideration of wikipedia, let's hope this was just a misunderstanding. Akld guy: excuse me, sincerely i didn't understand what you mean, thousands of persons share the 151.x ip in italy, if it's blocked they're all prevented from editing everything because of one stupid troll who can't even keep on edit warring any more, this is a fact Centocinquantuno (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed this edit by the IP account that User:Centocinquantuno admits is him: . Note the similarity in this edit from the IP troll on Talk:Mafia: . The writing style is similar, especially in use of quotation marks to separate a clause from the edit to which the user is replying to. I'm fairly certain that User:Centocinquantuno and the Mafia troll IP are one and the same. That being said, I think this 2 week range block is overkill for the problem and suggest that it be overturned now that the page in question is protected -- Samir 01:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Centocinquantuno, if all IP's starting 151.x were blocked, then there would indeed be thousands blocked. But I can't imagine an admin blocking such a wide range. My first reaction was that you were misrepresenting the extent of the block. My apologies if that was a wrong assumption. It is possible, but not likely, that the admin made a mistake. But in that case, how did you know the range blocked was far wider than it needed to be? Akld guy (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Samir Akld guy: thank both of you for your answers. let me clarify your doubts: i know he's a human like me, he may have just been tired or in a hurry in that moment, i don't think he's a bad guy or someone who likes abusing users, not at all, but he's done something he shouldn't, exceeding his authority. what about the "assume good faith"? i'm doing this with him, but he didn't with me from the beginning. Samir wrote: "I think this 2 week range block is overkill for the problem and suggest that it be overturned now that the page in question is protected"; that's what i'm asking for: please, just restore the previous block ending tomorrow! i'm asking both for me, who didn't go against rules, and for the 32000 and more persons who won't be able to edit wikipedia for 2 weeks, please Centocinquantuno (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * i'm not that foolish troll and i'd like not to be likened to the cause of my problems, i don't know why you think i could be him comparing our writing styles, i've just had a look and, for example, he uses the "br" between a line and the following unlike me, he quotes each sentence before replying "like this" not “like this” (check, please), and his english is better or at least visually cleaner than mine; the only similarity i've found is that he doesn't use the ":" to reply a single interlocutor (you didn't say this, if i'm saying it myself it's because i'm not the troll we're talking about) and i don't use it because i reply to 2 or more persons at a time, but how many normal unregistered users do the same because they're not used to talk in pages like this?
 * the ip range which was blocked is a /17 range, which means more than 32000 potential users blocked. i've checked just now, i wrote an inaccurate ip number, it was 151.20.x actually, thanks for making me notice that! anyhow in this discussion i've been no longer contesting MSGJ's block (just 24 hours or so to go), which i may not agree with because of its exaggeration and futility but is perfectly legitimate, i've been contesting this block's extension by ohnoitsjamie because such a penalty isn't provided by wikipedia for making 3 unblock requests in 6 hours due to lack of answers and because his "wasting people's time" isn't even a reason for a block...


 * Notes to : (1) If you want to be taken seriously, kindly type like an intelligent adult, with correct capitalization, spelling, and grammar, and paragraph breaks, and avoiding irrelevancies and walls of text. (2) No one is prevented from editing Wikipedia just because an IP range is blocked, any more than you were prevented from editing. All they have to do is create an account. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize. Is this text better? You are right about correct capitalization and paragraph breaks, but please keep in mind that I am Italian, unlike you I am not a native English speaker, so my spelling and grammar can not be as correct as yours. If you had written in my language, I would have not pointed out that you did not write in perfect Italian. Also you have just written "cmts" in the summary.
 * If one's IP range is blocked, he or she can not create an account. I had to ask a neighbour to create an account for me so that I could log in, but I am a bit experienced about IPs and the Internet stuff, and I was lucky enough to have a friend among my neighbours.
 * Thank you very much for your note to admin(s)! Consider that the article we are talking about (Mafia) had already been protected one day after the range block started. I hope that you appreciate my effort to write in proper English. This was the first time I took part in a discussion.

Centocinquantuno (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to blocking admin(s): If the problem is now seen to be confined to merely one article (and I see no one now denying that), please just semi-protect that article for as long as necessary. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(i'm gonna try my best to write in the most proper and comprehensible english) I am summing up the matter because the original block is going to expire in a few hours: First: I have broken no Wikipedian rules, I have just been waiting for an answer to my unblocking request, almost 6 hours to be precise. Second: I have made 2 more requests just because I did not receive an answer, and such requests were neither invalid nor disruptive. Third: "...your talk page access may be revoked which makes it even more difficult to request unblocking..." "...you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired..."; rules are clear, not being blocked but being unable to access to one's own talk page. Last but not least, more than 32000 persons who have already been prevented for a week from editing en.wikipedia (because of a single troll who could no longer continue his edit war on an already protected page) are now being prevented from editing for two weeks because of an admin's hasty or not enough ponderate decision about me (who did not break any rules as I said). I am just asking admins to restore the previous IP range block, cancelling its extension. Four of you have already said that the block has no reason to be any more and/or it is exceeding, the first two responders had a different opinion because I wrote a "wall of text" and I did not provide sufficient nor sufficiently clear information. Please, remove the last block concerning 151.20.x IP range. Centocinquantuno (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thursday, october 29, Administrator MSGJ blocked the 151.20.x IP range because a troll was edit warring on the article "Mafia", which was protected the next day.
 * Yesterday morning I realised that I could not edit anything because my dynamic IP range was 151.20.x, which is a very common IP range in Northern Italy.
 * At 9 a.m. I made an unblocking request; at noon I had received no answers and I made another identical request; after waiting 3 more hours I made the third identical request.
 * Administrator Ohnoitsjamie answered a few minutes before, but I became aware of that after making my last request, so I answered on that page.
 * His answer was this: "You'll need to find another IP range to edit from if you wish to edit constructively."; how can a user with a 151.20.x IP range use a different IP range?
 * He read my last request and answered: "The block has been extended to two weeks for wasting people's time with repeating the same request across different IP addresses."; that is why I am writing here.


 * Note to blocking admin(s): If the problem is now seen to be confined to merely one article (and I see no one now denying that), please just semi-protect that article for as long as necessary, instead of rangeblocking, as everyone seems to agree that would be the best and obvious and normal procedural solution. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since there is no-one disagreeing with Centocinquantuno, Softlavender's endorsement seems sound. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC).


 * I agree. Centocinquantuno, I'm sorry that you feel frustrated but it's not unusual for these cases to take a few days to resolve themselves as more admins read over the comments and someone decides to take action. I'm not familiar with setting range-blocks so I can just affirm that they should be as narrow as possible and if the vandalism is limited to one article, it is better to protect the article than have collateral damage of preventing other editors from editing from those IPs. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 14:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

thank you everyone, now all we need is a willing admin who physically clicks the "unblock-button" :) Centocinquantuno (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked the range. If disruption resumes please feel free to handle as you see fit. -- Versa geek  18:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Versageek: thank you, you've acted adultly because you made a misjudgement and then changed your mind! 32000+ thanks ;)Centocinquantuno (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet still no explanation why Centcinquanteetun cant edit. This is an encyclopaedia my friend, not a social network. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Roxy the dog, i didn't call you "Rossi de dogghe" or anything else, why did you cripple my name? however, there were 32000+ persons who couldn't edit, last week for a single troll and this week for an admin who exceeded his authority because of "assume bad faith", and i couldn't create an account since my full range was blocked, as i said yesterday i had to ask a friend to create an account for me so that i could log in, how many of the 32000+ potential users could do the same?Centocinquantuno (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Involved admin comment I agree with Samir's suspician that we are dealing with the same IP user who was targeted in the original block, and no one else appears to be affected by it thus far.  See my comment to original blocking admin here. I'm not planning on taking further action on the IP range, but I'm not going to wheel war with another admin who does.  The problem at Mafia can easily be handled in the future with page protection extensions. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * oh, look who finally showed up! and just after his block was undone, not before. i'm answering in MSGJ's talk page since you've already written that there and the issue discussed here's already been resolvedCentocinquantuno (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) by CFCF
This concerns edits to multiple parts of Identifying reliable sources (medicine) by User:CFCF, but for I am going to focus on the lead paragraph -- the other changes just support this change.

Stable version:
 * Version from 1 October 2015: "any biomedical information in articles"
 * Version from 2 September 2015 (as edited by CFCF!): "any biomedical information in articles"
 * Version from 7 July 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
 * Version from 13 January 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
 * Version from 4 January 2014: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
 * Version from 26 January 2013: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
 * Version from 24 January 2012: "the biomedical information in articles"
 * Version from 1 January 2011: "the biomedical information in articles"

Original edit:
 * 11:01, 31 October 2015: CFCF changes "biomedical information" to "biomedical and health information"

This change to the guideline was to support his claim that "Any health related information is covered by MEDRS" and his claim that "The guideline takes the most general application of biomedical possible, which includes anything health related." -- claims that have received a huge amount of pushback from the other editors on the talk page. Other editors kept saying that the guideline clearly said "biomedical information" and not "biomedical and health information", so CFCF simply changed the guideline to agree with him.

Edit warring: I was not willing to go to 2RR to see if CFCF would make a 5th revert.
 * 14:40, 31 October 2015: Minor4th reverts (1st revert)
 * 11:21, 1 November 2015: CFCF reverts (1st revert)
 * 16:46, 1 November 2015: Minor4th reverts (2nd revert)
 * 11:21, 1 November 2015: CFCF reverts (2nd revert)
 * 16:46, 1 November 2015: Minor4th reverts (3rd revert)
 * 00:12, 2 November 2015: CFCF reverts (3rd revert)
 * 00:27, 2 November 2015: Guy Macon reverts (1st revert)
 * 00:30, 2 November 2015: CFCF reverts (4th revert)

Comment

While Minor4th did revert 3 times (twice in 24 hours) he she was restoring the version that had been in place for many years while CFCF's proposed changes were discussed. CFCF proposed an interpretation on the talk page, and when multiple editors told him that his interpretation went against the clear wording of the guideline and against common sense (car crashes, bicycle riding and refrigeration relate to human health, as does domestic violence -- the specific topic that CFCF wishes to place under MEDRS) -- he just went ahead and changed the guideline to agree with him and edit warred to retain his changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the merits of the "stable" version (I agree with Guy Macon on which one they thinks it is), it is improper to change the article right in the middle of a discussion. We can debate, like Clinton, of the meaning of "is", but whatever "stable" means, a constantly edit-warred addition is less stable than the version which was there for three months at least. Btw, Minor4th is female I believe, though they have not set their preferences: they = they. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 05:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am female. I am not part of some men's rights group as alleged below by CFCF, and I consider that casting aspersions.  I also agree that it is disruptive of CFCF to change the guideline to suit his preference in the middle of an RfC discussing the scope of that guideline.  I note that CFCF has also been edit warring the guideline re: "country of origin" which is also a the subject of an RfC close that CFCF disagrees with.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Like I noted at the WP:MEDRS talk page, Guy Macon has neglected to mention the other stable version that was involved in this dispute. The stable version he is far from eager to support. There is edit warring on both sides regarding this guideline, and I fail to see why CFCF should be the only editor sanctioned for it. And this second thread on CFCF is completely unneeded, considering that there is already the thread above; talk about overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. I simply picked the first edit made in January of 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, and 2015, the first edit in July (mid year) of 2015, and the first edit made on the first day of the last three months. I correctly identified the consensus version that was stable for at least five years. CFCF announced that he was changing the guideline to support his position in an ongoing discussion.


 * in the two diffs Flyer22 cites, the lead paragraph of the article said


 * "Wikipedia's articles are not intended to provide medical advice, but are important and widely used as a source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that any biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current knowledge."


 * both before and after the edit, and Flyer22 himself herself had no problem with "the biomedical information in all types of articles".


 * So how do a couple of diffs that don't change the lead paragraph in any way show evidence that the lead paragraph was anything other than the version that I have clearly shown to be stable for at least the last five years? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No nonsense. I showed that "health" was already at various parts of the guideline, and that this was also a stable part of the guideline. You, however, clearly do not support that stable version. And I am female, by the way (in case you didn't know). And I indeed had an issue with the "biomedical" change, which is why I stated, "If we are going to stress 'biomedical, then we should link to it, since, as seen at Talk:Domestic violence against men, editors commonly do not understand what biomedical entails." You were clearly one of the editors I was referring to. That change in text is also why I started this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We are discussing changes to the lead paragraph. If you wish to discuss changes to some other paragraph, make a list of when it was changed and by who and post it on the article talk page (if you think it needs to be changed) or here (if you want to accuse an editor of wrongdoing) Changes to other parts of the guideline are not evidence that there is consensus to change the lead paragraph of the guideline -- which has been essentially for at least five yeas -- in the middle of a heated discussion about the lead paragraph of the guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What I pointed to also concerns changes to the lead of the guideline, and they are most assuredly relevant to this discussion. "Health" has always been a part of the guideline, in the lead and lower; and CFCF was attempting to restore the WP:STATUSQUO. That is my point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The edits are strongly supported by the consensus on the talk-page, and have been so far only opposed by two editors who came to the discussion after trying to push questionable quality evidence at Domestic violence against men. The edits are a supported clarification of consensus, and reverting them is very disruptive. This section is an attempt to game the system, trying to get rid of anyone who doesn't support the Mens Rights cause. Of note is the previous discussion on this board that was clear that there was support for the edits. Filing a second report is not constructive. I realize this may be seen as editwarring and I agree to back down, but on the basis of the previous post here any attempt to go against the percieved MRA-cause is called upon as disruptive. Frankly restoring these edits is a waste of time, as they will need to be readded by other editors again, and the reverts by Guy Macon and Minor4th are a clear example of attempts to undermine existing consensus from the MRA group on Wikipedia. I invite anyone here to take a look at the talk page WT:MEDRS and again take the time to say that the edits are not supported by the very extended discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine). CFCF   💌 📧 11:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Strongly supported by the consensus on the talk-page"? See, , , , and . I can post a couple of dozen more if required. Or you can do as I suggested at the start and post an RfC to see if the community supports your changes. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - one of those diffs provided in the OP is not me reverting CFCF; I was restoring info that inadvertently got caught up in a revert by another editor over unrelated "country of origin" content. The domestic violence issue has been settled for some time, as we all agree that a better/newer source has been provided to replace the source in question.   Raising that now is a straw man.  To say that your changing the guideline in the middle of an RfC is supported by consensus is blatantly false.  The RfC discussing the issue is only a few days old for one thing, and there is a great deal of opposition to your overly broad application of MEDRS to non-medical topics.  Finally, what the heck is "MRA" and why are you putting me in that group? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct. It was clearly a simple error correction and should not be counted against you. Sorry for missing that. So, by my count, nobody has gone past two reverts except CFCF. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I find it very troubling that CFCF has edited a major guideline during the midst of discussion to match is preferred outcome. This has the possibility of slanting the results of the RFC as the first thing responders will do is check the guideline for what is says. AlbinoFerret  19:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Guy Macon has a history of reverting way back to an older version where he thinks it is a stable version. Guy Macon thinks his edits are allowed and is reasonable to revert way back to 21:48, 28 May 2015. His reverts also reverted improvements that were unrelated to the reverts. So far editors do not agree with reverting way back to an older version. See Talk:Domestic_violence_against_men. According to User:Kevin Gorman, there were concerns about copyright violations. Guy Macon also reverted at the MEDRS guideline page. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If you have a complaint against me, post it in an ANI report with your evidence. This ANI report is about CFCF editing a major guideline while it is being discussed so that it supports his position, and then edit warring to retain his changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't need to start another thread. Do you still think it was appropriate to revert back to an earlier version or are you going to stop doing things like this? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am going to ignore you and keep doing what I have been doing, which has resulted in a ten-year, 30,000 edit record with zero blocks so far. You are roughly half a dozen accusations on random talk pages away from being reported yourself for harassing me. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that people are arguing about whether or not "health information" is or is not included within "biomedical information". Seems like an easy to formulated question for a RfC. I would recommend that all of those who are editing warring needs to start a RfC and stop edit warring. User:Jbhunley made the last revert just a few minutes ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An RfC is the way to go. I was, shall we say disappointed, to find that one of the parties to a content dispute had been editing source guidance when I went to consult it before commenting on the issue. That kind of thing is disruptive and, in my very strong opinion, the kind of thing that should resort in a block both for disruption and for being deceptive. The deception being much worse than the disruption because it shows extreme bad faith. That said, expanding biomedical to include all 'health' seems like it would have all sorts of knock on consequences. Where does it stop. Without defining the parameters  of 'health' the whole guideline becomes subject to massive gaming and/or POINT making disruption used to show how over broad it is.  J bh  Talk  21:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think thats a major point of some of the responders, where does it end. Pure medical or health information is one thing, and should be covered by MEDRS. But some supporters and the proposer of the RFC suggests its still MEDRS after 2 or 3 degrees of separation like car crash statistics of someone who walks away ok from a crash. There should be a line somewhere, that at present doesnt exist. AlbinoFerret  21:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is the precise issue.  The guideline has always included health , but it wasn't until recently that some editors with a less than clandestine motive questioned our definition of biomedical. If you take time to read the guideline it is very clear that it does not only cover the strict biological portion of medicine, and that would exclude all of mental health/psychiatry, where MEDRS is very needed. There is no idea of deceiving the community behind the edits, and they were strongly supported by several editors.
 * As I pointed out the guideline already links to WP:BIOMEDICAL which defines to the lay-man what is included in "biomedical", and that includes "health", epidemiology etc. There is no expansion of scope with either wording, one is only a only a clarification . With the link in the lede defining biomedical we are not really in a different position with or without the clarification, except that without it readers and editors will be expected to read so much more to grasp the scope.
 * And to respond to AlbinoFerret, car crash injury is a major public health issue and covered under epidemiology . Listing the number of car crashes is not a medical statistic, but listing injuries, or even lack of injuries is! You will see how it is a logical fallacy to include one but not the other, when one is the total minus the other. This has been explained several times, but you seem not to want to reply to those explanations except to conclude they are "preposteroous". CFCF   💌 📧 21:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. This ANI report involves you (CFCF) editing a major guideline while it is being discussed so that it supports your position, and then edit warring to retain the changes. There is no "but I was right!" exception to the Wikipedia policies you have violated. I suggest that you try to come up with a reason why you should not be blocked rather than continuing to assert that you were on the right side of the content dispute that led to your disruptive editing of a major guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This thread also concerns you. At WP:ANI, anyone's behavior may be under scrutiny, and your behavior is clearly under scrutiny, since you were "editing a major guideline while it is being discussed so that it supports your position, and then edit warring to retain the changes." And as for a WP:RfC, there was already one; it simply is not going the way you want it to, since various editors there are clear that WP:MEDRS applies to epidemiology, and that they view epidemiology as "biomedical." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There was a bunch of people edit warring the document in question during the discussion. Likely a bunch of fish need handing out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a bit misleading. The first edit adding "and health" was added by CFCF here on October 28 with the edit summary "per discussion". There was no discussion supporting such a change then, and this was immediately objected to. CFCF claimed next that the phrase is "longstanding consensus". CFCF uses "per consensus" and "per discussion" in highly idiosyncratic ways,, which recalls the famous line by Inigo Montoya in Princess Bride. Obviously edit-warring requires usually more than one editor, but the locus of the dispute is clear. All people are asking is to get explicit consensus before making the change, and now the RfC has been opened after more than 3 days of edit-warring. Was that so hard? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 04:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). This, of course, means that everyone will immediately stop discussing the content dispute on ANI and focus on the user behavior issues, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahaha...I mean, of course. clpo13(talk) 06:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the dif that looks at before CFCF edited the article back in June 2014. What we missing now is "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article" I do not have the energy to dig around and see who exactly removed "health related" but it was their before and is not now. "reliable content about health" also changed to "reliable biomedical content" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This ANI report is not about edits to other parts of the page. this is specifically about CFCF improperly editing the lead in the middle of a discussion about the lead. If you are implying that CFCF was on the right side of the content dispute, there is no "but I was right!" exception to the policies that were violated here, and ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That diff is from June 2014 to the present (59 edits) and includes CFCF's edit. Looking specifically at the page on June 14 we find "Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles" . AlbinoFerret  18:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? CFCF   💌 📧 15:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First you proposed a change to the lead paragrraph on the talk page, then you changed the guideline to agree with your interpretation, then you edit warred to retain the changes, and most recently you falsely implied your desired change to the lead paragraph isn't a change from the version that has remained stable over the last five years. The editors above were simply correcting that last claim. Not that it matters; what you did was against Wikipedia policy no matter which side is the right side of the underlying content dispute, and ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. Nice try deflecting the conversation away from your changing the guideline in the middle of a dispute about the guideline though. It almost worked. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that is just a repeat of the exact same arguments as before, which have already been proven to be false. Repeating your position isn't going to make it stronger. It doesn't even come close to answering the question posed to a different editor of why it matters that I edited some entirely different part of the guideline. CFCF   💌 📧 22:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason it came up is because you and flyer22 keep bringing it up The reason it matters is... it doesn't. This ANI and the RfC you recently posted are about the very first paragraph of WP:MEDRS what you did or did not do in the third or thirty-third paragraph is irrelevant. You were reported for changing that first paragraph, not some other paragraph. Are you ever going to attempt to explain your behavior? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * He changed more than the first paragraph of the lead, as seen here and here. So stating that we should only focus on that first paragraph is insincere, especially since he was attempting to restore the lead to the WP:STATUSQUO. Of course more than just the first paragraph is the focus. You don't get to tell us or others to focus only on the first paragraph. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes I do get to tell you to focus only on the first paragraph. This is ANI. ANI is where you report editors for engaging in disruptive behavior. I reported CFCF for disruptive editing of the first paragraph of MEDRS. I don't know or care whether his edits to other paragraphs were or were not disruptive, not having bothered to look at the history of his edits to those paragraphs. I reported CFCF's edits to the first paragraph of MEDRS, and the evidence is clear that CFCF's edits to the first paragraph of MEDRS were disruptive. CFCF has to answer for the specific behavior he was reported for, not some other behavior that you would prefer to talk about. As far as ANI is concerned, what he did elsewhere is irrelevant until someone reports it. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Per my "21:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)" statement above, you do not get to tell me or anyone else to focus only on the first paragraph. And the sooner you stop repeating yourself, the sooner others will stop repeating themselves. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Call for administrator decision and close
This has gone around in circles long enough. Either CFCF changed the first paragraph of a major guideline from the state it was in for the last five years while in the middle of a heated talk page discussion about making his change or he didn't. Either he edit warred, restoring his preferred version five times, or he didn't. Either this behavior is acceptable or it isn't. May we please have an administrator examine the evidence, decide whether the evidence supports this report, and take appropriate action to stop further disruption? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Claim of trademark and legal threats at A Marvelous Work and a Wonder
Hello. The editor Chrisnemelka has been repeatedly removing the text of A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, claiming that since they hold the trademark on that phrase (registered in 2010), Wikipedia cannot use that phrase when talking about a 1950 book. They have made legal threats in this edit summary and on their userpage. I sent them a message referring them to Wikipedia's legal threat policy, and asked them to rescind the threat, but they seem determined to continue. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See here, too. GABHello! 18:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request for Felt friend
I'd appreciate opinions on whether this edit on 's own user page warrants an indefinite block without warning. The blocking admin, considers it to be an attack on transsexuals. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That user page history certainly seems to warrant an instruction to get their derriere out of WP:NOTHERE territory fast, or else (whether for the bong or the "real girls"). As for blocking - can't tell, admin's call.-- Elmidae  10:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the page of the blocking admin. Granted that the post in question is wholly inappropriate as a Wikipedia entry, it is posted on the user's own page; had it been posted on the page of a user who had identified as transgender, or on the article page of a transgender subject, than the offense would have been unarguable. But posting on his own page means that the chance of any other editor seeing it is quite small, and also means that there was no overt intent to bring it to any other editor's attention. The comment was made without context, elaboration or follow-up. I would have taken the view that a warning, perhaps a final warning, or as an extreme reaction a short block would have been adequate.--<b style="color:red;">Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 10:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While it was an inappropriate comment to make, if it was just that one talk page edit, it doesn't constitute Extreme, unwarranted harassment and doesn't warrant an indefinite block (although a limited block would send a message that such comments are unacceptable). It would be a different matter if this editor was posting on other editors' talk pages but it was simply a stupid, juvenile comment on their own user page that was quickly reverted. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with and would personally support a 24-hour block (although I am not an admin) and a clear explanation as to why such comments are hurtful and unacceptable. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Both here and at User talk:Rklawton there is consensus that the edit, while not good, was not worth an indefinite block, so I shall lift the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking indef ban of Second Dark
Hello, I'm seeking to have the user Second Dark (talk | contribs) indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Their account was created in May this year, and is solely aimed at disrupting The Frankfurt School page. This user has so far been warned for violating WP:TPG, WP:CANVASSING (off and on) and has previously received a 24 hour ban for WP:EDITWARRING - such is the composition of their talk page. More recently the account has adopted the tactic of WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING against the editorial consensus. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and to my mind this is an open and shut case that would have been resolved the first time I raised it - but wasn't due to a distracting sock puppet investigation in which they were found not to be a sock, and my other complaints were somewhat overlooked (this time we're facing the distractions of a miscreant IP aimed at achieving the same outcome). Literally every edit to The Frankfurt School page this user has made has been reverted by other editors (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5), all of whom have made their best efforts to explain the situation to this disruptive user. Their combative behaviour and policy violations have now been going on for 6 months well past the point any reasonable person would have developed a respect and understanding for Wikipedia's policies (which they continue to flout and WP:BATTLEGROUND). Please make sure this matter gets resolved this time, as it risks falling into the category of WP:LONG long-term abuse. This user comes back every few months to harass the page, I think they need an extended holiday from this activity. --Jobrot (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You neglected to inform them of this discussion so I've placed a notice on their user talk page. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 10:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Liz, I must have gotten distracted. --Jobrot (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Recommend BOOMERANG. From his contributions history, Jobrot is a battlegrounding edit-warring SPA who is here to make Wikipedia describe cultural marxism as a right-wing conspiracy theory (it is neither) in violation of the neutrality pillar as well as the civility pillar since Jobrot is calling the other editors in the content dispute conspiracy theorists. Second Dark is also an SPA but he is not breaking policies.


 * Anyone interested in the subject in dispute can refer to p.189-190 of Great Ideas, Grand Schemes by Paul Schumaker et al which describes 20th-century communist philosophies as calling for "a total and revolutionary transformation of society", "transforming human consciousness", and "cultural revolution" to "break down political and social institutions and customs on a continual basis." Examples are given of the Soviet Union and Maoist China. The content dispute is over whether everyone who is aware that this history happened should be described in Wikipedia's voice as a right-wing conspiracy theorist and associated with the mass murderer Anders Breivik. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The page and section isn't dealing with "communist philosophies" in general - and the key proponents of this conspiracy theory are specifically claiming its aim as "destroying Western culture and the Christian religion" - the conspiracy theory is associated with Breivik as he championed it in his manifesto as reported in various WP:RS sources. In fact, all the sources in the current section meet WP:RS.


 * "Second Dark.. ...is not breaking policies." ignoring editorial consensus, repetitively performing WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING without consulting or even listing any complaints on the talk page, disruptive edits to the talk page, WP:IDHT and not being WP:HERE for the right reasons (in this case, comming here only to break policies) are all policy violations. Besides which Second Dark is a repeat offender and has already been warned several times in several ways by several different admins as well as users. Their time here is over, and they have proved their disinterest in community, policy and editorial consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What consensus?


 * Reading this article for the first time, and knowing nothing of the subject matter, I also thought it quite inappropriate that 'conspiracy theory' is used as if a fact rather than reported as a claim made by opponents.... Wikipedia should not be using an abusive term as a statement of fact. As an analogy, you may well find sources saying George Bush is an idiot, but describing him as such as a matter of fact (e.g. 'During his presidency it became clear that Bush was an idiot', or the heading 'President and idiot') rather than reporting someone else's description of him as an idiot is to say the least unencyclopedic. Ben Finn (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In your defenses of the deletion, you're attributing undue weight to left-wing sources which deliberately seek to discredit the beliefs of the right using rhetoric similar to that which you are employing in our discussion. We would not (for example) use primarily right-wing sources to dictate the tone and content of the article on feminism unless we were Conservapedia ... Ptprs (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is quite simply WP:NPOV and WP:OR of the worst kind imaginable. Please keep in mind what trade literature has to say on the subject and don't develop your own theories or try and portray a very common term in cultural studies as a "conspiracy theory", this is unsuitable for an Encyclopedia. 62.157.60.248 (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's crazy how people are so desperate to pretend that saying the Frankfurt School was influential in forming the current American Left ideology is somehow a "conspiracy theory." I took courses in philosophy at UMKC which discussed the Frankfurt School at length, although my professor was trying to put them in a positive light (in my opinion) and calling it "cultural Marxism" was no big deal, cause it was Marxism and it was about culture instead of economics... --BenMcLean (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015 - Change "Conspiracy Theory" to "Cultural Marxism". Remove condemnation of racism and include references to association with racist ideologies. Overall, make the tone significantly more neutral... Ideloctober (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please make the section heading CM not CT - I don't care about whatever you guys are all into, but a heading should be as descriptive as possible. It is currently failing.... Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ... This is disappointing, embarrassing, and far from any neutral point of view being claimed... — 50.252.14.210 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why not do as German wiki and create Cultural Marxism as a disambiguation page with links to Cultural Studies and a page about Cultural Marxism as a right wing catch-phrase/slogan? ... --Batmacumba (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As we can see in this article the term "kulturmarxist" was already in use by the 1960s to describe Frankfurt schule proponents among the German academic right. It's absolutely not true that the term didn't appear until 1992. VivaElGeneralissmo (talk • contribs) 22:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * How has Jobrot been allowed to completely defy the overwhelming consensus on this talk page that Cultural Marxism should have its own page? 86.170.51.163 (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Jobrot wants Second Dark banned for adding a POV tag here. That is the "disrupting", "not here", "disinterest in community, policy and consensus" etc that Jobrot refers to. Adding a POV tag to a POV dispute. Again, recommend BOOMERANG. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (Above post formatted by Softlavender for ease of comprehension in this overlong thread.) Softlavender (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What you've done there is very dishonest indeed. You've taken parts of the talk page which came BEFORE consensus was formed, and pasted them AS IF they represent the current views of the active editors on the page. I have pasted a link to the consensus, but obviously I now have to do what you've just done, and quote from the page it's self:


 * ''Main page: Frankfurt School Talk page


 * I'd be interested in hearing from other editors on this matter so we can gauge the consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Any of the more descriptive ones would be fine with me. I guess I like "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" the best but only by a little bit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In accordance with WP:RFP I've put in a request to the appropriate admin for lowering the protection on the redirect page so that we can change the heading (without breaking the redirect). If nothing comes of it I'll put a more general request in at WP:RFP. Thanks for your interest in this topic. In the meanwhile, hopefully some other editors will comment as to clarify consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've dropped the protection to semi; can I suggest changes are only made when there's a clear consensus to do so, though? At the moment, there appear to be at least three options on the table. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would support "Cultural Marxism (Conspiracy Theory)". It's clear from what Jobrot has said before that this page does not address the common usage of 'Cultural Marxism' among conservatives, but only about the fringe conspiracy theories related to that usage, as attested by RS's. This would be more descriptive and avoid the earlier conflation between the two. PublicolaMinor (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no need for the parenthetical. Just write "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". RGloucester — ☎ 05:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree. Or just leave it as is. Dave Dial (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've gone ahead and made those changes! Congratulations on helping to come to the first consensus based decision this talk page has seen in a long time! --Jobrot (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is all from the bottom quarter of the talk page, making it some of the most recent discussion on the page. The stuff you've pasted is from the top half, and those discussions CONTINUED until the other participants either saw reason, or saw enough reason to cease their line of argumentation. THAT is the purpose of talk pages - to DISCUSS editorial changes to the page - NONE of the threads you quotes accomplished consensus. Hardly ANY of them were even suggesting editorial changes, and many of them were going against WP:TPG - I suggest this IP user, along with Second Dark BOTH do as I have repeatedly advised - learn the purposes behind policy. I'll note here again that today Second Dark is once again demanding the NPOV tag be put on the section, without being able to suggest ANY changes to the article that would help. It's just a personal WP:BATTLEGROUND desire of theirs to call the section NPOV when it's not - and they need to accept that what they're doing goes against the WP:NPOV guidelines:
 * "Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies"
 * "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."
 * Learn the rules if you're going to come here and flood this page. --Jobrot (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Learn the rules if you're going to come here and flood this page. --Jobrot (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Since this appears to be about the whole "cultural Marxism" thing, this AfD discussion might be of some use. In short, some people disagree with it being called a conspiracy theory and think a simple POV tag is going to it. clpo13(talk) 08:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And those people have provided NO EVIDENCE, and NO UNDERSTANDING of the topic. As I've just made clear at the bottom of the current section of the talk page. There is no case to be made that The Frankfurt School was ever part of any organized movement to overthrow Western Civilization, and it's a poor reflection on Wikipedia that I'm having to go to this much repeated effort to re-iterate this simple yet obvious fact about The Frankfurt School. No academic nor any reliable sources have EVER made this claim of them because it's a RIDICULOUS claim to make about them and goes against their own writings and beliefs. --Jobrot (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a matter of WP:NPOV it's a matter of WP:DRIVEBY and now of WP:BATTLEGROUND and it needs clearing up with great prejudice in favor of the academic and editorial consensus. It's clear whose side Wikipedia should take, and what should be done as this specific user has been lingering and displaying poor conduct for some time now. Do not let it fall into the category of WP:LONG, this user has already been overlooked once for a banning (and now we're back here), don't let it happen again. There are no redeeming features. --Jobrot (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The user is now edit warring. --Jobrot (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's JobRot who has been edit warring by removing the POV tag when there is a clear POV dispute. He has camped out there for months and has refused to work with literally dozens of people.  I'm willing for there to be a no POV tag once the dispute is resolved, but it has to date not even been entertained.  He also consistently accuses me of vandalism when I haven't made a single edit except the tag.  I've tried to work with him but he refuses and is in violation of the consensus on the talk that the article is not neutral.Second Dark (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what the term "consensus" means? I've linked to the consensus I'm talking about, and there has already been a consensus on the previous AfD. What do you have to show your "consensus"? Nothing. So your accusation is as foolish as it is empty. Likewise demanding there be a POV tag due to the title (as is your claim) when there is a strong pre-existing consensus on the title (as I've linked to) IS VANDALISM and a VIOLATION OF CONSENSUS. This is an example of the consistent WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE actions I've had to endure from this user and their edits - they are only here to WP:FORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND and they refuse to WP:LISTEN. This arduous and repetitive cycle must stop. This user fails to accept policy or even recognize consensus (as you can see in their own statements). They need to be banned to stop this madness. --Jobrot (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * At the very least they should be permanently banned from The Frankfurt School page and the associated talk page. This is not the first time they've been disruptive there, but it ought to be the last. --Jobrot (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You've also refused to discuss adding sources, academic sources, that counter your point of view. Any Admin can just look at the talk page.  Also, about half the talk page is JobRot trying to scare people away from the page.  He's been doing this for months.  He's also lying when he says there was any sort of consensus: he's basically an army of one.  I'm willing to work with him, but this is very clearly a POV dispute if there ever was one.Second Dark (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please - feel free to go to the talk page and cite an academic source and quote the text you think should be included. That would be a LEGITIMATE use of the talk page! Which we could have a legitimate editorial discussion around! PLEASE DO THIS! I'VE BEEN ASKING YOU TO DO THIS SINCE MAY. Instead you've been failing to WP:HEAR me, and using the talk page as a WP:FORUM to discuss your personal views on the matter - which I frankly don't care about at all (as I've now made clear to you on multiple occasions). --Jobrot (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All you've done on multiple occasions is prevent a neutral point of view from being added. I'm not the only user there who you've had a problem with.  The page simply needs admin attention at this point.Second Dark (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and back to square one we go! --Jobrot (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've suggested several sources over the months as evidenced by the talk page...then he starts screaming that they're my personal opinions. Please stop lying.  Do you really think your accusations aren't verifiable?  JobRot has wikiowned the section and talk page.  I really need admin attention at this point.  I'll check back shortly.Second Dark (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:deadhorse --Jobrot (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you just try to ignore this editor, and the anon ips who continuously push this conspiracy theory. That is the reason I reverted the attack on the article Talk page that you reinstated. It's not going to do any good to reason with these editors who refuse to listen. Pointing to the AfD or other discussions that we've had over and over is enough now to show consensus. Responding to every comment-attack is really just useless. I also agree the editor(Second Dark) should be blocked for disruption and tendentious editing Dave Dial (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Request block of Dave Dial for personal attack. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your initial revert to the talk page was probably the correct direction to go in. The user in question hasn't been on the talk page since PublicolaMinor and Aquillion showed up. So I suspect my presence there is their problem with Wikipedia. I'll try to stick to WP:horse but as you suggest, users who repeatedly flaunt their inability to WP:LISTEN to policy should probably be removed from causing everyone else problems... and policy/consensus has been quite clear on this topic Talk Page consensus, AfD consensus, MfD consensus. --Jobrot (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The only problem is that SecondDark tends to take large breaks then come back for repeat performances - as they did in May and September. Which is why I'm pushing the issue here. This isn't their first stint at this, and they've been directed to policy often enough that normal comprehension should have occurred months ago (see their talk page). So their behaviour appears to be intentional/motivated. --Jobrot (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: It's too early for anyone to be banned from Wikipedia. A topic ban, a temporary block, or an indefinite block with WP:STANDARDOFFER might be in order. But let's not jump to site bans yet. NOTES: (1) The IP participating in this discussion appears to probably be logged out (i.e. socking), which adds to the measure of his problematic behavior. And add to that his knee-jerk "Request block of Dave Dial for personal attack", above. All things considered, I personally Support blocking  for disruption and tendentious editing. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint you, but none of the ip's were me. I submit to an investigation if you don't believe me.Second Dark (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:Meat Second Dark has proven that they only care about Wikipedia's policies to the extent they can be aided in avoiding their repercussions. Whether this has been their off site canvassing immediately after being warned for onsite canvassing, or their recent brinkmanship of 3RR after having already received a 24 hour block for violating 3RR (and in all honesty I would have had them suffer another 3RR block had this AN/I not already been in progress). They've even had the gall to complain when informed of policies - that they could have in their own words; "easily looked up themselves" - yet failed to do so. I'd say that a topic ban is the minimum that can be expected from this user's ongoing behaviour and would also serve to clear up what they are WP:HERE for. Their continued violations against WP:Consensus and tendentious editing, on top of their long lineage of other violations, uncooperative behaviours with multiple editors and unwillingness to comprehend policy when directed should have earned them at least that by now. I'd hope that would also act as a warning to others considering going down the same path. --Jobrot (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Second Dark, it's pretty obvious after the IP went for a block of Dave Dial for making an observation about you that the IP is you or someone you called in. If I were you I'd desist in all of your disruptive activities immediately, including editing the The Frankfurt School article and talk page, before you get indef blocked. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave Dial called me a conspiracy theorist. That was a personal attack just like that 900FootJesus comment. If requesting a block is out of line, look at the title of this section. And nobody called me in. Did Jobrot call you in? 71.198.247.231 (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You've never made a single edit to Wikipedia except for this ANI thread, so you were either called in or you are Second Dark socking. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you're psychic? Or you cannot imagine any other reason that two different people could agree that the page fails NPOV so badly that it made the news and you are pretending not to have seen the quotes of others agreeing that you formatted. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The author of that article David Auerbach is tied into the GamerGate controversy (he even coined the term "Gamergate moderate"), and in the AfD on the previous Cultural Marxism page it was noted by many that GamerGate is a group that housed strong although ill-informed support for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Hence the resurgence of the conspiracy theory coming from GamerGate related forums (where "SJWs" and "Cultural Marxists" are the same mythical beasts)  as well as appearing on 4chan and 8chan. However, what these ill researched individuals fail to note (and it is a stark fact of the matter) is that on the previous Wikipedia page about 'Cultural Marxism' only 3 out of 9 of the sources in the reference list (which the page is constructed around) even mentioned the term "Cultural Marxism" (and two of those references come from a single individual, with the third coming from the right wing commentator William S. Lind). Contrast this to the current section where 14 out of the 14 sources for the section use the term 'Cultural Marxism' within them. This is not a space for re-hashing the unanimous AfD and the fact that the IP is attempting to extend the controversy around GamerGate to this discussion somewhat reveals their position (which as noted, does not have the sources on its side). --Jobrot (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * None of that justifies Jobrot's persistent refusal to approach the subject in a neutral manner and throwing a salad of aspersions against anyone who suggests the slightest change in wording in a transparent attempt to get people banned for opposing his agenda. Several people have presented several sources showing that there is more to cultural marxism than the right-wing conspiracy theories and  Jobrot still pretends that never happened. Jobrot refuses to allow quotes from Marcuse and Gramsci on their own beliefs and won't allow Lind to be cited for Lind's own opinion in the section about Lind's opinion that credits Lind with popularizing the term. This is a clear case of page ownership by someone who is on a mission to modify Wikipedia's content for political reasons and not to build an encyclopedia. If Jobrot is doing this to win internet points in this gamergate dispute then that is all the more evidence that the problem in this area is Jobrot. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Jobrot refuses to allow quotes from Marcuse and Gramsci on their own beliefs" - I've never made such a refusal. Also, Gramsci wasn't part of The Frankfurt School.
 * and won't allow Lind to be cited for Lind's own opinion in the section about Lind's opinion - I was the one who put in the Lind citation (of course his work is completely WP:OR claiming things like "when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality... ...They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual" and "Political Correctness is intellectual AIDS" - so naturally I made sure to include a secondary source that puts Lind's views in context).
 * If Jobrot is doing this to win internet points in this gamergate dispute then that is all the more evidence that the problem in this area is Jobrot. I've never edited the GamerGate page (nor the talk page), nor do I intend to.
 * Your claims are demonstrably false, and are thus most likely damaging the case you're attempting to make. --Jobrot (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I retract the claim about Gramsci since I was unable to find anyone quoting him in a quick browse of the archives. Marcuse and Lind are two of the citations from the original article that Jobrot just said were inappropriate for inclusion. As for the claim that Gramsci had nothing to do with the Frankfurt School and is not relevant to a discussion of cultural marxism, that is not what Jobrot was saying at a4d.
 * ... this particular subject isn't covered or defined in any sense other than as directly synonymous and interchangeable with the views of The Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci... --Jobrot (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The academic use refers to Gramsci and The Frankfurt School. --Jobrot (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The academic school of cultral marxism is defined by Jerry Watts in The Socialist as Ostrich: The Unwillingness of the Left to Confront Modernity from Social Research vol. 50 No. 1 (1983)
 * Cultural Marxists are all of those who consider themselves the theoretical descendants of Gramsci, the early Korsch, Sartre, Lukács, Lucien Goldmann, and the "Frankfurt School."
 * When Jobrot rejects sources that discuss these subjects and their application of marxist critical techniques to culture just because they don't use the then-obscure term "cultural marxism", Jobrot is throwing out good sources.
 * Regarding the modern use of "cultural marxism" to describe the general tendency of marxists to attempt to change culture, a different subject worthy of a different page and what Jobrot wants Wikipedia to call a conspiracy theory, George Waskovich in The Ideological Shadow of the U.S.S.R. (1950) describes this tendency as obvious, well known, and hardly needing mention.
 * To one familar with Marxian ideology and the political purposes which rest on it, it is no surprise to know that the ultimate purpose of the present Soviet leaders is inexorably to transform the neighboring states into economic, social, political, and even moral counterparts of their own state, nor that certain means and measures must be used to achieve this objective. Indeed, the technique of revolutionary change has become all too clear...
 * Waskovich follows this with descriptions of marxist attacks on the cultural traditions of eastern Europe that the USSR used to strengthen its hold on these countries. Or as Jobrot calls it, a wacko conspiracy theory.71.198.247.231 (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a much more recent, much more relevant quote from me: "This is not a space for re-hashing the unanimous AfD"
 * I've always argued that the radical-left used the term prior and in a different way to the radical-right (that it originated in the radical left of the 1970s and was intended as a criticism of The Frankfurt School - I now own my own copy of the 1973 Trent Schroyer book it was first sighted in - which is critiquing The Frankfurt School for having departed with their Marxist origins), this usage came from the radical-left and was extremely rare and informal (being at least twice removed from the theorists in question as "Cultural Marxism" is a term based on "The Frankfurt School" which its self is an informal term/grouping (as is mentioned on The Frankfurt School page multiple times WP:NAME) - this makes the original meaning of Cultural Marxism all the more rare, informal and Non-Notable (just because a private author publishes an uncorroborated opinion doesn't make it notable for the creation of a whole Wikipedia article).
 * More vehemently I'd like to point out that people can change and flesh out their views within 6 months (the time it's been since your quotes of me), especially if they've spent far more time researching the term since then. As I have. So to dredge up and paste out of context comments from 6 months ago as if opinions are all static, unchanging and unaffected by time, reason, and research is frankly an incredibly pathetic attempt at agenda pushing. WP:AGENDA WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:DEADHORSE. I'm right here giving you my opinion - you don't need to desperately dredge through my logs when I can give you my most current opinions immediately and with great strength. --Jobrot (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

admin able see if ip sock not accusation true false so ping adminMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we please all calm down and settle this like adults, it seems like all this discussion had gotten is people angry. Weegeerunner chat it up 16:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support indefinite block with WP:STANDARDOFFER as per Softlavender's vote. I've had enough discussion with Second Dark (6 months off and on) to know that further discussion would be WP:deadhorse, others are free to try to corral this user into understanding and accepting Wikipedia's policies but at this point and with their repeated bad behaviour and policy violations, I have to give up. --Jobrot (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Weegeerunner: there's your answer. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If this were any other forum, this IP user's behaviour would be known as Thread jacking. I suggest we all focus on the purpose of this thread and on my original complaint. --Jobrot (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist96 ARBMAC violation


Can an uninvolved administrator please apply the relevant WP:ARBMAC rules in case of User:Terrorist96's abusive comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=689040786&oldid=688923648

I would do it, but I am obviously involved. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I stand by my statement. There was nothing abusive about it. This user has taken it upon themselves to remove the infobox from a micronation article whilst many other micronation articles have infoboxes (i.e. Principality of Sealand, Conch Republic, Aerican Empire, Republic of Molossia, etc.). The user resides in Croatia, which is a statement of fact. Terrorist96 (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To accuse people of being biased solely because of their nationality is widely recognized to be abusive, especially in this topic area. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Joy: there is obviously no consensus to remove the infobox on the talkpage. If anything its a fairly even split with perfectly reasonable arguments on both sides - in which situation the status quo continues. The RFC is poorly phrased and ultimately leads the respondents to arguing in for treating Liberland as an event rather than a micronation and certainly does not make it clear that the intent is to remove the infobox. Using the (and I disagree entirely with the closer here) the stated consensus to phrase the article as about an event as evidence the infobox should be removed is... well twisty logic at its finest. Thats a content dispute which needs to be hashed out on the talkpage. Terrorist96: regardless if someone is from the country which claims the land in question - it does not make them incapable of editing or having an impartial opinion, and I have not known Joy to edit in a nationalist manner. Disregarding someone's argument because of their ethnicity is not a way to work with people and continuing will likely end up with sanctions under ARBMAC. I suggest you both go back to the talkpage and start a specific Infobox RFC to resolve it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There I just opened one. Go forth people and decide the future of an infobox on a non-existant micronation! Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The person who closed the RFC said explicitly that there is consensus, yet somehow you want to relitigate it, and to top it all of you come here apparently in defense of a person who explicitly insulted me by assuming bad faith solely based on nationality. This is beyond ridiculous. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * is the RFC you're talking about ?, if so,  closed it by saying There are two questions in this RFC. Should the article be made into an event article. There is consensus for this. The majority opinion is this is how it is described in reliable sources. That the coverage is about the declaring of a micronation, not that one exists. There was nothing stated about the infobox itself.  As far as Terrorist96's comments,  they were addressed by , I will also state that his comment was un-called for, making any comments about someone's ethnicity is flat out wrong. No, Terrorist96 isn't blocked,  he was warned, and if he continues, will likely be blocked.   No one's thrown you under the bus.  Kosh Vorlon   20:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I never mentioned their ethnicity. I simply said they reside in Croatia, which is a statement of fact as mentioned on their talk page. I don't know their ethnicity nor do I care. The reason it's relevant is because the article is about Liberland, a new country that has been declared on land that's disputed between Croatia and Serbia. Croatia refuses to recognize Liberland, while Serbia claims that Liberland isn't infringing on its territory. Croatia doesn't claim the territory either, but wishes that Serbia would claim it (so as to give credence towards their interpretation of the border). Because Joy resides in Croatia, it was my opinion that they weren't injecting a neutral POV by repeatedly deleting the infobox AND several other paragraphs in the face of multiple other users re-adding them. That's all. I never called Joy anything defamatory nor effused any malice towards their nationality. Thanks for not banning me, but even a warning is unwarranted in this situation, IMHO. Terrorist96 (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:KoshVorlon I'm assuming this is being treated as 'resolved', so can an admin archive it? Terrorist96 (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is correct, my close did not address an infobox. AlbinoFerret  21:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Come on, even though you worded your edit summary carefully, it still looks like you're talking about her ethnicity without actually outright saying it, kind of like if I said someone resides in north korea therefore they're not neutral on anything about north korea.  To me, your statement appears to be impling an ethnic remark, and no neither you  nor I should close this out.  Kosh Vorlon   11:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's why I picked my words carefully, so that I don't violate any rules. In addition, I'm not the only one that doubts 's neutrality. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=prev&oldid=689073189 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=prev&oldid=689071477 →Terrorist96 (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the alleged micronation of Liberland is on land disputed betwen Serbia and Croatia, it is clearly in the Balkans and thus is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. I have given User:Terrorist96 an alert under those sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest taking this to WP:AE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Redundant now. As T has not been warned previously, all that can be done is a formal warning. Which Ed just did. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how even a warning is justified when all I did was 1. Make a statement of fact (Joy resides in Croatia); 2. State my opinion that it seems like she's not acting neutrally (by 1. deleting the infobox multiple times after it had been restored by several different users - none of which were me; 2. Deleting several paragraphs when there was actually no consensus to remove any of those things, as has been evidenced here); 3. State my opinion that I think she should be restricted from making edits to the article because of her numerous disruptive edits. I never denigrated her nationality nor attacked her as a person in any way whatsoever. I did nothing different than what this user did (with seemingly impunity): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=prev&oldid=689073189 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberland&diff=prev&oldid=689071477 Furthermore, in order to gauge her neutrality, I asked why she is fixated on removing the infobox for Liberland only and not removing it for other micronations (i.e. Principality of Sealand, Conch Republic, Aerican Empire, Republic of Molossia, etc.) and I didn't get a convincing reply. If after all of this, you still think a warning is justified, then I don't know how else I'm supposed to layout my thoughts without offending anyone. I genuinely feel like I did nothing wrong. Terrorist96 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Arbcom warnings are not purely used as a "you do that again and you're going to get it!" type warnings. They're more of a "please be careful how you approach this article (and topic area) as there are sanctions associated with it." All editors who edit in Arbcom sanctioned topics usually get this warning regardless of whether they've actually done anything wrong. Many topic areas are covered by sanctions, articles on the Balkans, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, American Politics, Gun control, just to name a few are all covered by sanctions and every editor working on those articles are issued with these reminders. Blackmane (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Terrorist96 isn't blocked, he was warned, and if he continues, will likely be blocked." - User:KoshVorlon. But your point is taken, thank you. Terrorist96 (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop engaging in this kind of wikilawyering. It's just too transparent. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Jaazib
Hi all. This seems like a fairly clear-cut case of self-promotion dating back to 2013 when vandalized BandPage to insert his startup band's name. The user didn't edit until a couple of days ago when they decided to promote their band yet again. They created Jaazib (band), which seems like obvious self-promotion. If you look at the deleted contributions, you'll notice a few peculiar moves to User space, Wikipedia space, and the creation of the article in Template space. Can't tell if this was just n00b stuff or a deliberate attempt to populate the project with ill-conceived redirects.

I PRODed the article, the user removed that. Fine. I nommed it for CSD as obviously promotional, but they removed the CSD even though I'd notified them of the CSD and bolded the warning not to remove the CSD here.

I left a fairly detailed explanation of our notability requirements on their talk page.

The user removed the userspace draft template I applied to their Userspace draft, which suggests to me that they want some version of this article to exist without any indication that it's not up to snuff. I'll point out that Corensearchbot flagged the live space article as a copyright violation. I have not researched this yet.

In addition to the obvious promotion, my attention was first drawn to this user because of this edit where they inapprorpriately change the gross value of an Indian film without updating the reference (which, in light of all these other problems, appears to be a deliberate introduction of factual errors.) There's also these edits where they attempt to use Wikipedia as a directory for other presumably non-notable bands.

Assuming the best of faith, we have competence issues at best, WP:IDHT in the middle (based on their responses here and their peculiar edit here), and outright promotion/vandalism at best. I'm not sure what sanctions I'd recommend, but the history of disruptive editing should be considered, and I don't see what value their garage band has at Wikipedia. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack against Me
Hello. I was attacked with this |this edit on my talk page by User talk:71.172.52.70.Eteethan (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Colossal moron", "twit" and "genius (in a sarcastic way)" aren't really personal attacks and sure as hell aren't worth reporting over!, Compared to some of the language here I think the IP was relatively nice, If he calls you other words which I won't mention then you might have a case.... – Davey 2010 Talk 23:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I call this a very obvious personal attack. LjL (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This IP user just got off a week-long block for disruptive editing and personal attacks. clpo13(talk) 23:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Had he called someone a colossal "c word" or a twat then yeah but the lanuage used was extremely low, I wasn't aware of the previous issues but I've gave a friendly tip anyway, I don't believe the language used violates NPA but hey I'm not an admin thank the lord . – Davey 2010 Talk 23:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

user:Telsa
is Telsa Gwynne, wife of Alan Cox. Telsa is, alas, no longer with us, having died a couple of days ago. We had numerous mutual friends, I am confident this is accurate. 86.28.97.168 (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear the news.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As am I, Sphilbrick, but isn't the procedure for an admin to add the deceased Wikipedian template and protect the user page? Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * These tasks have now been done by another admin. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Confusing SPI case of
I am very much shocked to see this result:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chander/Archive

Among all these confirmed socks, the only one i knew and trusted was. Those who don't know Indian names. Chander is a male name and Babita  is a female name while Arora is a Punjabi surname. Among all the blocked sockpuppets; Babitaarora is the only one who made two unblock requests (As can be seen in her talk page). She used to revert vandalism and report vandals to AIV and Administrators. I couldn't find any single edit from her contributions, where she was spamming, creating non notable articles. Her articles creation list shows a few articles created by her were deleted, but they were recreated by others: as Hawaizaada and Baby (2015 film) (page was moved).

I don't know the details of the information available to check users. Is it possible that two users living in the same city, using the same ISP provider and having the same operating system, and unfortunately editing the same articles, will become collateral damage?

I am making this post only for "Babitaarora" not for other socks.

If this CU result is 100% true ( I am wrong and Babitaarora is indeed a sockpuppet ), then whom can i trust in Wikipedia??????? 1.39.37.1 (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, could someone conversant with SPI look into this, please? I see these two users created accounts within a few days of each other in 2014 and they tend to edit articles on Indian topics. However, they never seem to have both been editing an article at similar times or in a collusive manner. They have both been prominent at WP:AIV but so far as I can see on different reports. But I don't understand how SPIs are done: I can't even see how Babitaarora came to have their edits checked in the first place. Is it merely that they have both edited a lot of the same articles? Thincat (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the OP for block evasion. Elockid  Message me 13:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Walter Görlitz
User:Walter Görlitz has repeatedly reverted my edits to Major League Soccer related articles. A consensus was established here that "FC" and "SC" were used too often in team names within Mrelated articles, and I'm trying to edit these articles to reflect this consensus, but I keep getting reverted. See these reverts, for example:

1234

This seems to be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, based on this discussion on my talk page and the comments that accompany his reverts. He insists that the consensus supports his position when it clearly does not. It's become distruptive: I'd like to move on this issue and work on improving these articles, but his reverts aren't allowing that. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm tired of Bmf 051's combative editing behaviour. The consensus was clear and he's removed almost every mention of "FC" in article. That's not "less often" it's unconstructive edits. Not only did I hear it, I'm tired of him yelling about it. I'm happy for him to to have a topic ban. And it's not my position, it was a position that was agree upon when the Whitecaps entered the league. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus changes. IF there was an agreement made when Vancouver entered the league (I don't think you've ever shown that such a discussion took place), this new consensus changes that. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As an example of his "less often" edit I offer where he states "YOU need to read the discussion. It says FC and SC should NOT be used as much. Quit defying consensus." Yet, "less often" here means not at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My edits have left several instances of "FC" and "SC". I have not removed all them. See here for example. The discussion talks about bringing it inline with other soccer/football articles as far as the usage of "FC" and "SC". I've removed some instances, but have left others. Your edits have not removed any, which isn't at all what the consensus states. Bmf 051 (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At least two piped-out all instances. Some edits removed several, but in what I would argue is an unacceptable way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So what's a working-criteria for keeping or removing these? --Jobrot (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is unacceptable. Modifying the discussion for a closed RfC. Bmf 051 (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this the place where we want to discuss a working criteria or should it be discussed where the vague criteria was offered? I returned to the project to request comment from them. I did not follow and revert Bmf 051's edits on articles not on my watchlist, only those that were. In most instances, the edits adding the FC were made by other editors so I would argue: leave them alone until a clear criteria can be offered. However, I have little hope of that happening. The FOOTY project is entrenched in a European milieu, not one with close ties with MLS.
 * Since I edited outside the closed RfC (after Rfc bottom), it is acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My criteria when I made these edits: keep it for the first instance of a team's name in an article, plus any uses in templates (Template:2015 Major League Soccer Western Conference table for example) as those may appear in multiple articles, and therefore could potentially be the first instance of a team's name in a particular article. The spirit of the consensus is to bring it in line with other soccer articles. This criteria actually comes short of doing that (i.e. it leaves more instances of FC and SC than you would see in Manchester United F.C. for instance), so I'm not sure what that complaint is. Bmf 051 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's the point, MLS has different WP:COMMONNAMEs than European clubs do. The discussion at the RfC is imposing a European understanding on the North American teams. I have had to deal with that for years when nominating third- and fourth-division Canadian teams for deletion. The response from the FOOTY project members is "'Keep - they're a third-division team, so they're notable." They have no understanding of the sport on this side of the water. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking solely at http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news and how they elect to self-describe. As of now, the first fifteen articles use the following terms to describe themselves. "Whitecaps FC": 5, "'Caps": 4, no team name: 3, "Vancouver" 2. In the fourteen articles that loaded (one timed out or reset over two attempts), this the breakdown. "'Caps" or "the Caps": 30, "Whitecaps FC": 27, Vancouver’s" or just "Vancouver" (only in reference to the team, not the city): 21, "Vancouver Whitecaps FC": 11, "Whitecaps" or "the Whitecaps": 3, "Blue and White": 3. There's no question that they use multiple terms, but never ever just "Vancouver Whitecaps" which is why it should not be used on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But MLS is a Single-entity league. Meaning, technically, MLS owns the team. Why are you selectively looking at that one MLS-related website? If you search mlssoccer.com, the league's site, you see "Vancouver Whitecaps" plenty of times. See. Also, what if you were look at what the media calls them, for example? Besides, the consensus is already decided: FC should be used less. You're WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Bmf 051 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but technically, MLS doesn't exist, it's the teams that own each other. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The league uses the full name in standings http://www.mlssoccer.com/standings. I see no reason why we should not. They use it in schedules http://www.mlssoccer.com/schedule. So we're left with deciding on whether it's in maps and prose. Maps are likely a first mention so I would argue full name as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the solution you're suggesting reflects the consensus, because it would keep the full name in the vast majority of cases. One of the gripes that you have (I gather) is with the wording of the question itself, specifically the meaning of "less often". We could sit here all day and debate whether "less often" means one less, two less, or 100% less – or we could actually read the discussion. The spirit of the discussion that formed the consensus, was that "FC" and "SC" are used far too often. The working-criteria should not start with eliminating as few FC/SCs as possible, but with using as few FC/SCs as necessary, because that reflects the consensus. Bmf 051 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not discussing the consensus here. As I have explained, the consensus was reached by people with an understanding of the sport in a different context and if you can’t see that they misunderstand the actual situation, then it explains why you’ve been edit warring to remove almost every mention of FC for those teams, which is also against the consensus. If you don’t respect the way the league and team represent the name, then we have nothing to discuss other than a topic ban for you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I really doubt that anyone has done anything here that would result in a ban.
 * It seems to me that the consensus you want is one that applies only to Major League Soccer articles. If such a WP:CONLIMITED consensus existed, why would it override a wider community consensus, regardless of the "context" of their "understanding of the sport"? Besides, it's not as if MLS editors weren't given the opportunity to respond to the RfC: notices were posted on the talk pages of relevant articles weeks before the discussion was closed. In fact, over half of the the editors that responded to that RfC are people that regularly edit MLS articles (including you and me). And why are you ignoring all the other references to these team's names on the rest of the MLS website? Bmf 051 (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I would expect it to apply to all North American leagues. The problem is that the North American editors don't engage with the FOOTY project because of past experiences exactly like this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what other North American editors don't engage the FOOTY project for this reason (as opposed to some other reason)? Bmf 051 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * and were two of the main editors who insisted on the separation of the three Whitecaps team articles. Three additional editors, who are have not edited in over a year discussed the topic as well., ,  and most notably  edit MLS articles and I cannot recall seeing them in Footy discussions. There are NASL editors who I have never seen there either. I will not speculate on reasons why they don't participate in Footy discussions. Perhaps they can comment on the piping-out of FC from Whitecaps, Sounders and other club names. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My 2¢? Once initially established that the full name includes the FC?SC?Whatever, it can be dropped, just like any case of using a short name for an article subject. It almost seems pointless (yet pointy) to insist on every mention including it. Charts and tables excepted. But frankly, the majority of writing on MLS just calls them "the Sounders", not "Sounders FC"; that just reads oddly. oknazevad (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That was what I suggested above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with oknazevad's suggestion. CUA 27 (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with this a well. This is not substantially different than my edits that were reverted. I too kept only (or mostly) the initial mention of FC in the prose, as oknazevad has suggested (see ). If the only thing Walter and I disagreed on is the mentions of FC in tables and charts that were removed, I don't think it warranted more than a partial reversion. Bmf 051 (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But there was no clear definition of what "less" meant and in the four examples I provided above you completely removed "FC". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

On an unrelated topic, I'm somewhat concerned about Bmf 051's in a topic I edited earlier today. I trust that this is not the start of wikihounding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What is my sudden interest in Jesus? Do you hear yourself? Bmf 051 (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not an interest in Jesus, in theology, and an obscure theological article at that. You have not edited in the area in your recent history and it happened to be at the top of my history at the time of your recent edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The larger question is, who are you to question my interest in anything? I checked your contribution page to find some diffs of your reverts, I saw a page that interested me, and I made a constructive edit. Nothing wrong with that. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is if you're doing it for the wrong reason. I would advise you not to find any other "interesting" articles that you haven't edited before but which are normal editing subjects for Walter Gorlitz. BMK (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that, and I don't intend to. Not because I did it for the wrong reason (it's not uncommon for me to make minor improvements on articles that I don't normally edit e.g. and ), but because I don't want to give the impression that I'm doing it for the wrong reason. Bmf 051 (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. BMK (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

user:CCL-DTL
Not sure if this is the right place, but would an admin mind looking into this user? Using vulgarities, not once, but twice, thrice and many more, threatening other users, spaming user talk page, telling people to get out of the wiki etc. Any disputes should be resolved peacefully, but not in these manners. -115.66.225.183 (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Notified user of this discussion, warned user <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg samtar { t } 15:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging - if you're not too busy could you possibly weigh in here? <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg samtar  { t } 16:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * CCL-DTL has not edited since they was warned and notified of this thread. I agree that some of their edit summaries and talk page posts are unacceptable but let's see if they take the warnings to heart. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg samtar  { t } 17:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Harvest of Sorrow
I am notifying User:Volunteer Marek and User:My very best wishes. This two editors are looking for any excuse in order to delete all my edits to the article. I tried to find a solution, but it came out they are just excuses, they just want to delete everything. Please check Talk:The Harvest of Sorrow to see the relevant facts. Here are the diff, they always roll back to a stub article. Also Volunteer Marek is going under all my contributions in order to delete them, as it is evident in Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow and Warsaw Pact.-- Flushout1999 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, Flushout1999 is hitting a trifect on those article. WP:POV - on Harvest of Sorrow, he's got a criticism section which is six times the length of the rest of the article, misrepresenting sources - the sources actually give a positive reviews to the book but Flushout1999 has managed to cherry pick single sentences or out of context quotations to make it seem like the sources are critical of the book, and to top it all of WP:COPYVIO where they copy paste entire paragraphs (cherry picked of course) from the sources. In particular they've been told about WP:COPYVIO, they've been warned about it, but none the less persist in re-adding copyvio material. I suggest an indef block until the user acknowledges that we have a policy on copyright and promises to respect it.  Volunteer Marek   22:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A discussion recently started on another page; here is a comment about this. Then an RSNB report was filed by another user. Here is a discussion on talk page of Flushout1999. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Marek and MVBW. They deserve thanks, because someone is going to have to through Wikipedia and remove/fix all of Flushout1999's edits, which are a toxic combination of POV-pushing, tendentiousness, and copyright violations. As best I can tell, Flushout1999's sole reason for editing Wikipedia is to try to discredit Robert Conquest (a reputable, if opinionated, historian) by any means necessary. Personally, I was planning to wait till he was done and then try to clean up the damage, but a more proactive approach would probably be wiser. MastCell Talk 23:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * MastCell, Volunteer Marek, and My Very Best Wishes are correct. Flushout1999 is editing contrary to policy and looks like he isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just had the unfortunate experience of looking through User:Flushout1999's recent edits. Propose either block or topic ban for Flushout1999 until he can behave himself. Darx9url (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is just looking to me as a cherry picking of old diff in order to put myself in a bad light and imply that I am in bad faith. I ask the administrators to go through the entire talks that have been reported here. The editors here are just now working as a team in order to have my edits deleted definitively, because they share the same point of view on these particular topics.
 * My edits were all well sourced with reliable sources, if there was copyvio is because I am still new here and I had not time to read all the policies until few days ago (see my contributions to verify, still few and on few pages). Here all these users are just looking for a way to punish me as I have been too "bold" in their opinion. They actually know and are aknowledging that the facts I reported in my edits are well sourced and real, but nonetheless they are always looking for new ways in order to delete my edits. What happened here is that they never assumed good faith since the beginning, go in Talk:Robert Conquest, you will see a persistent constant attack towards me with allegations of "having an agenda" (perhaps, just to improve the article?) and claims of being marked with a "sin". While what you see in The Harvest of Sorrow it looks to me like just a hidden vandalism (WP:SNEAKY: "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages") as they don't delete only what they claim should not stay there (for copyvio and not RS) but everything everytime. And, moreover, they don't improve the page in any form, just reverting it to a stub.
 * This is, in actual facts, POV pushing of their own personal point of view and a form of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing as they want to be present in the articles only what is according to their own personal point of view. Moreover User:Volunteer Marek and User:My very best wishes are now working as a team in order to delete my edits in The Harvest of Sorrow and discourage me to correct eventual issues on my edits. What I see it's just a distortion and misuse of the wikipedia policies in order to not have others editors going ahead with the edits they dislike (as these edits are not in agreement with their own personal point of view) even if, in the final outcome, these edits would comply with the wikipedia policies. In fact they are just working as political partisans here on wikipedia, in order to not have reported important facts that they dislike while knowing they really did happen. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang block (48 hours) for forum shopping at ANI and tendentious editing with a refusal to accept consensus or drop the stick. Hard to take you serious when you have refused to follow policies such as copyright under the claim that you are new. You began editing in July 2013. We don't appreciate having our time wasted collectively with such tripe. There is currently an article which is full-protected for a week because of you and I'm surprised that you didn't get blocked then. Perhaps it would be a good idea if someone would leave a neutrally-worded request on the talk pages of the three pertinent WikiProjects for more input into future discussion. This may relieve the editors that have been dealing with this and get more eyes on those articles. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh please...I never went to this noticeboard in order to not be blocked, in fact I was expecting to be blocked because of the copyvio. If the wikipedia rules state that you get a block when you commit copyvio more than one time then it's really fine to me! Mine was not an excuse in order to not be blocked, it was only an explanation of how it happened!
 * I did not came here to not be blocked, I came here for a totally different purpose: to address the fact of the presence of "political partisans" who are doing whatever is possible to have important and undisputable facts omitted and deleted from the articles pages, who are distorting and using policies (such as WP:CONSENSUS for example, but also WP:RS) in order to have only their own personal point of view be present in the articles. For this reason, as I have more time, I will continue to write in the talk pages of those articles bringing again and again more new sources and proofs of the facts which I believe deserve to be present in those articles. And of course I will refrain to make new edits on those page if there is no consensus.
 * Let's see what happens! Maybe I could be wrong and mine is only a misperception! I would be very very glad to give my apologies if I'll be proved wrong! -- Flushout1999 (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I summarise your comment,, it reads as "I'm assuming bad faith until proven wrong." What I am reading in your editing pattern and general behaviour on Wikipedia is that it is you who is the partisan editor here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Being here to test other editors on how far you can push your POV before you point your finger at them and accuse them of obstructing your attempts to get at The Truth = you're WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Iryna, until the other users assume bad faith towards me, I'll just repay them with the same money, if they are not going to change this attitude of theirs towards me. Until now, they had only demonstrate that they simply wanted to cancel my edits since the beginning, as well put out by MasterCell comments.
 * I accepted the block without protesting and, of course, I assume all the responsability for the copyvio which I accidentally made, but this is something that will be so easy to resolve in the near future and in my future edits, that I really believe now the issue is another.
 * For example, in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is written clearly:
 * "we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."
 * Everything was very verifiable and from reliable sources, and when the sources are primary (like it can be Conquest himself speaking) I use to write quotation. So I really think this does not apply to me.
 * (And that's in fact why you were able to check on copyvio, because the sources were real, verifiable and reliable indeed, as these are: wikileaks PLUSD (search "Robert Conquest"), official biography of Henry Jackson, official biography of Margaret Thatcher (, it can be easily found on libgen if you want to check it), and, Conquest's "Reflections on a Ravaged Century", chapter 7 and 9).
 * WP:NOTHERE is something that you can apply more correctly to people who are reducing articles to a stub, instead to people like me who worked to improve the same articles adding new facts and sources. Also I see you have a long record here in this very ANI thread, as you are involved in many present and old incidents like these ones, because of that it is very hard to consider you a "neutral" contributor to wikipedia. It seems to me you spend more time in the Administrator noticeboards fighting with other contributors than editing the articles, is this not WP:NOTHERE?
 * As stated there: "If a user has a dispute, then they are expected to place the benefit of the project at a high priority and seek dispute resolution. A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing." It looks to me that you never seek dispute resolution in a peaceful way, but instead you just look (as others do) for solutions aimed at punishing whoever does not share your personal POV.
 * In any case, I really believe that dispute resolution with the aim of giving the project high priority has to be found focusing on contents and not on simply citing of wikipedia policies/pages in order to prove that the others are wrong, or going under the users' talk pages filling them with "warnings", so that, at the end, only your personal POV can be present in the wikipedia articles, which is something that you and others seems to do constantly.
 * I asked the other users more than one time to discuss about contents in the talk pages, they have been actually only able to delete my edits and to accuse me of copyvio. I am still waiting for an answer on contents so I am now asking myself if they actually had something to add to the articles in order to improve them or if they are only able to destroy the others' edits. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just glanced at Flushout's 6500 character change to The Harvest of Sorrow. It's not terrible, he's going to the right source for criticism of Conquest's (inflated) death count, Slavic Review, which is the main American journal for Soviet Studies. Conquest is a controversial figure in the field; he's very, very political with his scholarship, one of the main anti-Communist historians of the 1970s and 1980s. The mainstream of history writing for the Soviet period is well to Conquest's left, but neither would it be accurate or fair to call Conquest a "fringe" historian. There was a huge generational fissure between the Traditionalist/Anti-Communist/Conservative/Political historians of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s and the new, post-Vietnam era Social Historians, who tend to be liberal or socialist in their personal politics. The latter group in the 1980s were known as "Revisionists" in contrast to the "Traditionalists" — not to be confused with German holocaust denialists, who use the same word as a self-describer. Bear in mind that I've just glanced at Flushout's stuff and especially have no opinion on the copyvio complaint — but at a glance he appeared to be serious and reasonable. Carrite (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, with respect to his changes to the Conquest bio, I am far more concerned with the one-shot rollback of 43000 characters of Flushout's generally pretty decent work than I am with the contribution itself — offering no opinion on any potential copyvio. It appears to me that Flushout is being sandbagged by conservative "owners" of the article, who blew up a lot of generally pretty good work with a hand grenade. As usual, it is the wrong version being "protected" by a meddling page freeze. It would be extremely unjust to block Flushout or to topic ban him, he's clearly a serious and grounded historian coming into conflict with people who do not share his interpretations. Carrite (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The history of Flushout on the Denial of the Holodomor piece is more troubling, resembling an effort to whitewash a section for political reasons (PLP?). Getting to the bottom of this would take more time than I have this evening. Carrite (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at the version which Flushout wrote myself. It is primarily based on this Village Voice investigation which is a very detailed look at the book and its claims. It is mentioned in Flushout's writing that the Village Voice's article is controversial. Conquest's own response to the piece is given as well: "error and absurdity". Further down in Flushout's writing, there is a review in the journal Slavic Review, which is a very respectable journal of Soviet studies. There is definitely an argument that the criticism relies too much on the Village Voice source. However, the article as it stands now is nothing more than a stub, and all the content added, good and bad has been eviscerated. This is not the way to write an article. The editor is definitely one with a strong POV, but their contributions were not all bad. This needs to be handled with nuance and appropriate phrasing, not sledgehammer tactics. Unfortunately, I am not especially knowledgeable about the topic to do it myself. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Denial of the Holodomor article, I again see their edit here as perfectly legitimate. The edit is straightforward WP:OR claiming that the Village Voice article denies the Holodomor. No source is given for this claim, as Flushout correctly state in their edit summaries. The Village Voice article explicitly states that there was a famine, for which Stalin was partially responsible, but states that this did not rise to the level of a genocide. This kind of stuff cannot simply be summarized as "denial of the Holodomor" without any source, as some people on the talk page have discussed. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 06:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Having dug more into this, the entire "Modern Denial" section, one section of which Flushout edited, is one huge WP:OR. Absolutely trash sources, or no sources, are used for wild claims, including a discussion at the mailing list of Left Business Observer (I know the publication and have followed it for a long time, but its mailing list is a free for all, by design). Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed as I read better the sources used for the Jeff Coplon part in Denial of the Holodomor, I can say not only we are in front to a huge WP:OR with the conclusion that Jeff Coplon is a "Holodomor denier" never being present in the primary sources reported . In fact, Coplon never denied the famine but instead only denied that it was a "genocide" and that it was "planned/premeditated", as most sovietologist historian do (for example R.W. Davies and S. Wheatcroft, and even the later Conquest himself! ,  pag.3 note 6), but also, it is not clear at all what is that makes different a "holodomor denier" journalist denying human premeditation in the famine, from a respected historian denying the very same premeditation!
 * In "Rewriting History", Jeff Coplon cites historian J. Arch Getty so that it's apparent his conclusions are the same of Getty. Coplon writes "Stalin and the Politburo played major roles" and then cites Getty: "[Responsability for the famine] has to be shared by the tens of thousands of activists and officials who carried out the policy and by the peasants who chose to slaughter animals, burn fields, and boycott cultivation in protest." (see also: ) Is this denying the 1932-33 Ukraine famine?
 * Actually it seems to me that confusion arise because in the article it is not stated very well if to be "holodomor denier" means one person denying just the existence of the famine itself (like Walter Duranty did), or if it means one who denies that it was "planned/premeditated" or that it was "genocide", without denying its existence.
 * This would be in any case deeply troubling, as not only the conclusion "Jeff Coplon=Holodomor Denier" can put in the position of being "Holodomor Deniers" many sovietologist historians, but this particular conclusion on just Coplon himself would be anyway a so partisan/biased conclusion that even if a secondary source is found it would have to be correctly cited stating "According to ...".


 * P.s. Thanks Carrite and Kingsindian for having read my old edits, if you found any problem in them and you want to tell me about it on my talk page I would be more than happy on having some advise from you for my future edits. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, according to Cathy Young, ,


 * Hence Coplon dismissed as absurd the idea that the famine had been created by the Communist regime. Consider a journalist who dismissed as absurd the idea that the Holocaust had been created by the Nazi regime. Would he qualify as a Holocaust denialist? Now, if you think that Cathy Yang was wrong, please bring other sources, but not your personal opinion, and not the writings by Coplon himself. But this is a content dispute, is not it? Why bring this to ANI? My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss content. The diff I gave above had no sources at all. Furthermore, an opinion by a journalist that another journalist is engaging in Holodomor denial is not sufficient to assert in Wikipedia's voice that it is indeed so, without any source at all. Not to mention that even the source you give does not state that Coplon engaged in Holodomor denial. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Cathy Young is a journalist. Dr. Arch Getty is a full professor of Russian History at UCLA. Who is the subject expert here? Carrite (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Kingsindan. Yes, sure, this is a behavior problem. I responded to Flushout because he/she continued placing walls of irrelevant text in this thread with promises "to repay them [other users] with the same money", right after receiving a block for forum shopping. @Carrite. The quotation was about specific publication by Coplon, not about Getty. Speaking about Getty, he much better known than Coplon and his historical approach is frequently described in books by Oxford University Press here) as "similar in many ways to the line taken by the revisionist school in Germany, with its opposition to moral condemnation of Nazism, its call to "historicize" Nazism, and its objection to such crude terms as "heroes" and "villains"". My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the big wall of text which placed were not helpful, but sometimes big content disputes require some elaboration. But I see their edits on the Denial of the Holodomor article as perfectly good. I advise Flushout to read the essay WP:TLDR. I also advise Flushout that their attitude "Users assume bad faith towards me, I will pay them back with their own money" is disastrous, especially in a contentious topic area. Even if you suspect users assume bad faith towards you, you should stay calm and not retaliate. I advise Flushout to read the excellent essay WP:GLUE. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 03:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'll always assume good faith but I have to say this was not done at all towards me since the beginning. I now read WP:PARAPHRASE so that I have now clear how I will be able to fix my past edits, I will just go back to the talk pages so we can all discuss on contents first. For the WP:TLDR, the issue is very complex so I'll probably have some trouble to synthesize my opinions but I'll try. I'll now check this issue on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor, I'll basically copy-paste what I wrote above trying to be more coincise. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Experienced editors should know better than to make edits like this. I haven't reviewed the other edits by Flushout1999 but he was certainly right to remove that section. <font style="color:DarkGreen;background-color:#FAFAFF;">Ssscienccce (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no, Flushout was wrong by engaging in edit war on this page with several contributors and by trying to disprove reliable sources on the basis of his own ideas, like here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussions on the talk page allow interpretations and arguments - that is not WP:OR by itself. This is to be sharply distinguished from making changes in article space based on no sources at all, which is present in the diff I and presented. I agree with the edit-warring claim though. Flushout seems to have simmered down and is following proper procedure now. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All editing by Flushout1999 during last year was directed towards promoting certain POV in several related articles. He/she should either stop doing this by making edits which do not cause objections from multiple contributors or edit something else. My very best wishes (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At least his removal of the Coplon attack section was in line with BLP and OR. The revert by Iryna Harpy certainly wasn't. A single source was used for a whole section that claimed Coplon was a Holodomor denier. And that single source was the article Coplon wrote, pretty much the definition of OR. I mentioned that section in the RfC a few weeks ago, didn't bother removing it because I know who would win that battle, either by endless discussions or with help from friends... Flushout1999 did remove it, we'll see how long it takes before that account is blocked indeff... <font style="color:DarkGreen;background-color:#FAFAFF;">Ssscienccce (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is mostly fixed right now, thanks to effort by Iryna Harpy and others. You are telling that Flushout1999 can contribute positively to the project as follows from his editing history in Holodomor denial (3 reverts and discussion). However, the actual problem is here. Flushout1999 re-wrote the page about Robert Conquest by copy-pasting large segments of text from an article by Jeff Coplon (related discussion), same person he removed from the page about Holodomor denial. So, after looking at his editing in general, I tend to agree with comments by user MastCell . My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed we had a discussion on that admin noticeboard which was concluded with my answer (here: ).
 * You are also saying that in the page about Robert Conquest I copy-pasted large segments of text by Jeff Coplon, but in reality I used his article only in this old version  of The Harvest of Sorrow (because of the large citations from academic and professional historians it contains) and, after your request, I deleted it totally (with this result: ). However, the page was again totally deleted by you and Volunteer Marek, and that's why I opened this incident.
 * Meanwhile you claimed in the noticeboard that this Coplon source was unreliable and that it was WP:OR in the Denial of the Holodomor article (here ). So I also deleted accordly the Jeff Coplon's section on that page for being OR and unreliable as you said. Iryna Harpy protested it and reverted it, telling me the article was well sourced (here:), so at the end I left it as it was.
 * After that, you made an effort to find some WP:RS in order for the Jeff Coplon section and article to be present in the Holodomor denial page, however it seems to me and to other editors that the sources used are still not good in order to claim "Jeff Coplon=Holodomor Denial" (here ), also it is evident that Coplon never denied the existence of the Holodomor, he only has a vision of it near to the one most western historians have. In any case, only you know why you changed idea about the WP:OR on that section.
 * Also now (11-5) you are saying that you agree with MasterCell that I have the goal "to assemble a case against Conquest, rather than to write anything remotely resembling an encyclopedic biography" while one day before you wrote on my personal talk page " I think that many changes in your version  are acceptable." (here:.
 * I'm sorry but I really don't understand your behavior, I was already blocked for 48 hrs for this issue because I made evident Copyvio (I was not aware of those policies, but now I acknowledeged them), in addition you and others deleted most of my edits, and I also said I will discuss on the talk pages before any edit. Why are you keeping this issue up? -- Flushout1999 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Can someone check the contribs of ? I'm nearly asleep, but I have a strong suspicion that they are purposely introducing incorrect dates and info into articles. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Offhand I see that this edit, which changes the date for The W to November 21, seems to be correct per this PopMatters review and the Amazon listing. I'll check to see if there's anything else, though, since this was the first edit I'd looked at. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit was unsourced, though. So far I'm getting the impression that this might not be done maliciously, but he does need to make sure that he sources everything with a RS. I notice that he's been warned about this on his talk page, but I don't see where it's been explained why he needs to source things. I figure if he continues to do it after that point, then a short block may become necessary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I saw edits like these all over with edit summaries like "fixed typo" ... these are not typos.        It goes back farther than this. Either we had a lot of incorrect dates, or these are being deliberately changed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The main method to my madness right now is that I'm giving him a little WP:ROPE. He's officially been warned that this isn't acceptable without proof and he knows the reasons why this is unacceptable. Basically, giving him a warning will give him one last show of good faith and one last chance to shape up and edit within policy. After this point if he continues on then we can block him much easier because we'll know that he's been warned about this and he cannot use "I didn't know" as an excuse. I could have just blocked him, but he could have contested the block by saying that everything was unintentional because of ignorance. Now he doesn't have that excuse. I've left him a warning about properly labeling his edits as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Checked 3 of those diffs above ("Duets: The final chapter", notorious B.I.G.), he changed it from Dec 2 to Dec 20, google gives Dec 2 but www.cduniverse.com, www.amazon.com, www.allmusic.com all give Dec 20. Ghetto Commission: he changed it from Nov 18 to Nov 10, Amazon says Nov 10. Comin Out Hard: changed from Aug 1 to July 6, amazon gives July 6. With the one Tokyogirl checked that's 4/4 correct edits. Google’s "knowledge box" always gives the other version, but google based their DB on wikipedia, so...  <font style="color:DarkGreen;background-color:#FAFAFF;">Ssscienccce  (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Assistance needed with User:Robert Rowlkey

 * Apparently related commons image: File:TucsonPrideLogoLargeNew 7.jpg
 * Apparently related commons image: File:TucsonPrideLogoLargeNew 7.jpg
 * Apparently related commons image: File:TucsonPrideLogoLargeNew 7.jpg

Mr. Rowlkey created an article on the Tucson Pride organization. He also added two logos for the organization (one here, one at Commons).

The problem is, since then, he has refused any assistance with the article. He undid some image reformatting that I did and twice removed the COI tag from the article. He has now blanked the article twice, after threatening to "take the page off line and have a friend of mine put it back up."

Now, my efforts to improve the article have been labeled "harass[ment]" and "LGBT discrimination". While no legal threat was made, he did state "This is going to become a media matter if this harrassment continues. I have kept screencaps of EVERYTHING. THe court of public opinion can be a real bitch."

As a result, I no longer feel it's beneficial if I engage with this editor; I'd like some expert help to come in and provide a different angle in explaining policies like WP:OWN and WP:COI to this editor. The article wasn't a bad article - I mean, I didn't delete it CSD A7 or G11. It needs some attention, and I think that with some guidance, User:Robert Rowlkey could become a valuable contributor to the project. However, if we can't all make a change of course here, I don't think we'll get to that point. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that Robert Rowlkey's reactions to your actions might have shown that he has a bit of a hair trigger in this regard, but I don't believe you helped the situation by failing to engage the user in anything but a string of templates. Sometimes an actual dialog is much more helpful. In this case, his first file submission indeed had no evidence of copyright, but as it is a low-res logo of an institution, it falls under fair use and could easily have been marked with logo fur (which I have now done). Helping rather than templating. Marking his article with a COI tag was appropriate, but when he railed at that, a simple explanation that the article was not going to be deleted, but that the tag exists solely to inform other readers and editors that other points of view might be needed, would have gone a long way to defuse the situation. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Diff 168 sounds like a veiled threat of retaliation ("This is going to become a media matter"). GABHello! 23:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious attempt to chill any discussion. While not a legal threat, it still has the effect of one. I'd be opposed to a block though as they do seem to be in need of some advice. Blackmane (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was brought to AfD as seen here: . The user in question made some rather harsh personal attacks, accusing editors of homophobia and harassment and again threatened to seek outside influence. The article I believe is a good enough article to stay, however I did gently remind them that personal attacks like that need to be left out. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The personal attacks were directed at me among others. Would an admin please take a look at the above referenced AfD discussion and instruct the subject of this thread to remove his entire reference to his opinion of my motivation? We have here a SPA slinging attacks implying and stating bigotry as a motivation towards every editor who he encounters. As I found no reliable sources outside the area where this organization exists, it is my reasonable contention we do not have notability per org. Show me some at the AfD and I'll withdraw the nom. Meantime, we have a COI, SPA editor who is committing numerous copyright violations and personal attacks. IMO, we need to make it clear to him that this is not the place for that behavior and enforce that point on the next violation. John from Idegon (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And here it is. Restored blatantly copyvio copy.  Please act, per NOTHERE. John from Idegon (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet another attempt at "chilling" behavior at Articles for deletion/Tucson Pride..."Christopher Street West has now been contacted to observe the proceedings here as well." It's like, So?  But the purpose of the edit is clear...to intimidate people from contributing. John from Idegon (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked for Robert Rowlkey, explaining to him that he needs to show he understands and is willing to abide by Wikipedia's copyright policies. As he also controls the source website, I also have concerns that a page containing "This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner" might suddenly sport a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I've removed talk page access due to legal threats. Max Semenik (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:The bypass is open
Reporting vandal. Can someone please remove talkpage access of the trolling sock of and revdel the personal attacks. Thank you. Dr.  K.  07:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Max Semenik (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Max. All the best. Dr.   K.  08:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith comments from User:Bloom6132
There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring about changes to next years cup. Everyone who posts there is entitled to their opinion. However, User:Bloom6132 has taken it upon himself to assume bad faith and be personal towards me, and it is uncalled for:


 * "Go ahead and be offended – your problem not mine." → Rude and not civil.
 * "well Einstein, the WikiCup scoring page is there for a reason." → Name calling, implying lack of intelligence in a sarcastic manner.
 * "But that does raise the question of why you need to add such (seemingly) vital info after GA designation – perhaps your article should not have been promoted in the first place." → Accusing me of not producing good quality articles.
 * "thought about it, and no, I don't buy that BS, not one bit. If you're sulking and complaining about not getting bonus points," → General rude tone and lack of respect.
 * "The rules are not here to stop people from suffering the consequences of their poor choices." → Doesn't mention my name specifically, but this was posted after the ones above and is quite clearly directed at me. Implying that I am somehow making poor choices.
 * "But you're correct on the second point – what is there to respect?" → In response to my comment "Don't expect me to respect yours when you clearly don't respect mine, or me for that matter". Saying "what is there to respect?" is very personal and rude. It's implying that I am in some way sub-standard or less superior in some form and it's showing that Bloom6132 clearly doesn't have any respect for others or know how to show it, yet demands that respect be shown to him/her. This is the worse comment he/she has made and it should not be tolerated.


 * Note 1: I placed a Level 1 Assuming bad faith tag on Bloom6132's user talk citing some of the comments above and his less than civil language here, but he/she proceeded to remove it from the user talk here with the edit summary "Bullshit".
 * Note 2: Bloom6132 was blocked for 24 hours on 21 October last year for personal attacks or harassment here and had three appeals to be unblocked declined.
 * Note 3: I did notify Bloom6132 of this discussion on his/her user talk, but they removed it nonetheless.

Bloom6132 has unnecessarily adopted a rude, impolite, 'better than anyone else' stance injected with uncivil sarcasm intended to offend. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b> 11:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC) — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b> 11:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh, arguments over wikicup scoring. And not even all of it, just about not doubling up on GA>DYK noms. If you are getting that worked up over it I suggest taking a break. Everyone else - I would suggest take a look at the page to get Bloom's comments in context. As an example, the first one (your problem) was in response to Calvin taking offence at something that is not offensive. Calvin - if you badger someone when they are voting in a poll with an opposite stance, expect some pushback. That you find Bloom's reason offensive for not wanting to allow doubling up bonus points is really your problem, not his. While the rest of his comments are clearly sarcastic, some of them are pretty close. You do come off as sulking about bonus points. At some point people need to just walk away from a battle you are not going to win. (Also FYI, warnings can be removed from talkpages in almost all cases - it is taken as they have been seen and acknowledged.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking at the entire discussion in context – I couldn't have said it better myself. Consensus within the WikiCup community has decided that GA→DYK noms should not be awarded points.  Calvin continues to fail to get the point with his IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ICANTHEARYOU attitude, despite the fact that he has been reminded several times by other editors why this rule is in place.  He's been advised to WP:DROPTHESTICK but refuses to do so, and instead exports the discussion here in order to settle scores.  I'm also pretty disturbed that he has stalked my pages in depth, for the so;le purpose of trying to dig up dirt, as well as thinking that he owns my talk page and believing that he can dictate what remains on there.  And before Calvin gets so self-righteous about my getting blocked once, here's his block log, where he has been blocked 4 times for reasons including disruptive editing, edit warring "compounded by attempting to bully", and violating revert-rules with noted WP:OWN issues.  In short, a lot of the me, me, me pattern of attitude that we're now seeing on the Cup scoring talkpage.  —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is sulking and no one is talking about battles (bizarre). You don't need to be personal and sarcastic to reply in conversation. You just don't. I haven't been blocked for over 3 and a half years, Bloom. Yours was 12 months ago and your appeal was declined 3 times because you couldn't convince admins that you deserved to be unblocked. There's no point listing a load of WP:'s linking to this, that and the other. You're the one who wasn't listening to me. You chose to ignore parts you didn't wish to discuss. Why are you going on about owning your talk page? I mean, seriously, WTF? Please explain what you mean here. I don't believe I have made any reverts or similar such things on your talk. You're entitled to remove things from you're own talk, I'm simply noting that you did. It's not like a tried to re-instate is it ; you misinterptreted that (I don't appreciate you saying I'm "sulking" either. It's called having a discussion and promising ideas, of which people are meant to listen, not brush off. Several other editors are talking about bonus points too. Actually, I wasn't even talking about bonus points, so you got that wrong too). Bloom, you need to seriously think about how you reply to people. Employing sarcasm when you've never spoken to that person can be taken the wrong way, and it was. People who know who may know your style, but I don't, and it's not a tone you should take when talking to someone you've never spoken with. I've seen admins say that before and they are right. It's not what you've been saying, it's how you've been saying it. You're saying I "stalked" your page (please don't flatter yourself), haven't you just done the same to me? Don't complain about it if you're going to proceed to do it yourself. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  15:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Bloom6132 has some kind of battleground mentality the way I see it, and I would suggest a quick block if they have been warned already. 16:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Weegeerunner chat it up
 * Bloom was the subject of a very long ANI thread for his battleground mentality around a year ago. Many were in support of a block, many more were in support of a block if he continued. He was not blocked, but then "semi-retired"; this is the first time I've seen him again since, to my memory, and he has come back with exactly the same kind of toxic, aggressive behaviour. In my opinion, his claim that there is nothing to respect in Calvin or Calvin's opinion (and, to be clear and as I have said to him, I consider Calvin's position at least somewhat confused) is way over the line. Before seeing this thread, I left a final warning on Bloom's talk page. I think my suggestion that, given his history, any further comments of this sort would result in a block was reasonable, but I will defer to any consensus developed on this thread. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * is reminded to be civil in discourse. I have reviewed the diffs above and the relevant WikiCup scoring threads. Independent of who was right and who was wrong, the comments made were belittling and didn't serve to create a collaborative environment. Josh has formally warned him. I don't think any other administrative action is required unless there is incivility that persists after the warning. As of now, I am marking this as closed -- Samir 03:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"David" vandal
Some days ago the IP was warned by myself and others for making a massive number of uncited changes to articles. For every change he left the edit summary "David". Today he has reemerged under a different IP:. Same location (Bangkok). Citobun (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Another one here: Citobun (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The edits are all to articles about tall or super-tall buildings. BMK (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

hi their i have complaining
on this wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompactFlash i wrote that the compactflash was the first flash memory card and i even gave a source "The first Flash memory card format, Compact Flash I The application which triggered the rise of NAND Flash was digital photography incorporated NOR Flash at its inception in 1994" https://books.google.co.il/books?id=vaq11vKwo_kC&pg=PA10&dq=The+first+Flash+memory+card+format,+Compact+Flash+I+incorporated+NOR+flash&hl=iw&sa=X&authuser=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=he%20first%20Flash%20memory%20card%20format%2C%20Compact%20Flash%20I%20The%20application%20which%20triggered%20the%20rise%20of%20NAND%20Flash%20was%20digital%20photography%20incorporated%20NOR%20Flash%20at%20its%20inception%20in%201994&f=false i even wrote the source right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CompactFlash#source_provide_compact_flash_was_the_first_flash_memory_card it is not ok that people undo me after i already give a source especially when they got no source that making my source not true i made this edit more time cuz it is not impossible that people undo me after i gave reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.164.29 (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please continue the discussion on the talk page and achieve WP:consensus for any disputed edits before making them again per WP:BRD. If you are unable to achieve consensus then use some form of WP:Dispute resolution. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked IP one year for block evasion. This is Ronkaufman and he has been at that IP for six months. He also posted on AN.

Removing of referenced content
+wholly inappropriate rationale in this edit.

It is irrelevant what the article is. If it's a featured article, then it shouldn't be because it doesn't include any criticism whatsoever. Alex (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." That is, not this content dispute. Use the article's talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Bazonka and spelling changes
User:Bazonka is mass changing licenced to licensed across thousands of articles. Examples. This is generating some stiff opposition at User talk:Bazonka. Bazonka has been reverted by multiple editors, but simply edit wars the change back in. I think the user should be stopped until a consensus is established to do this. I cannot block myself as I have become involved in the discussion. This would also seem to be something that requires WP:BAG approval. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 11:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am simply making changes to spellings as per MOS:S. Some of the editors who reverted me actually thanked me when I reverted back with a fuller explanation, i.e. that "license" is the correct verb form of the BrE noun "licence" and is not (as it initially appears) an AmE spelling. Bazonka (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And WP:BAG is irrelevant as no bot is being used. Bazonka (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * BAG is not the main issue here, but from WP:Bot policy on assisted editing,
 * While such contributions are not usually considered to constitute use of a bot, if there is any doubt, you should make an approval request...In general, processes that are operated at higher speeds, with a high volume of edits, or are more automated, may be more likely to be treated as bots for these purposes.
 * The case is at least arguable. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I felt that MOS:S gave sufficient justification. I'll look at BAG before I do any more. Bazonka (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I requested BAG approval but they essentially told me to bog off. My actions are not relevant to them. Bazonka (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop wasting Bazonka's time with frivolous complaints: it's perfectly fine to fix spelling with AWB. Aside from when debate on spelling exists (e.g. Oxford spelling), spelling changes to conform with the OED are never wrong for en:gb articles, and if you don't know how to spell your own language, or you think you know better than Oxford, there's no reason to listen to you on this. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's rather sad for your argument then, that OED does not actually declare the licence form wrong. My reading is that it permits it. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 01:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be technically correct, but uncommon in official and contemporary writing. MOS:S explicitly mandates the use of the S spelling, so I suggest you raise it at the talk page there, and unless you can convince people to change MOS away from the accepted common usage, then I think Nyttend's decision should stand. Bazonka (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's rather sad...
 * Actually, it's rather sad that your argument for reflexive edit-warring is "Well, technically it's not prohibited". Pretty much means that you've lost the argument about whether something is the right thing to do. 106.140.138.151 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is far from getting "stiff opposition", but rather support.
 * Fowler is pretty adamant that Bazonka is correct here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what? Unless someone can actually point out what I'm doing wrong, that isn't either completely bogus (e.g. citing WP:ENGVAR) or in contravention of MOS:S (e.g. advocating a preference for archaic spelling), then I'm going to continue. I reckon I've virtually fixed all of them already though. Bazonka (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Editing Wikipedia often makes us challenge our own preconceptions. I thought you were wrong, I checked, you're right, please do carry on. NebY (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , you've checked and found that there is evidence of a change. You have not found that the spelling I learnt in school before that second edition was written is incorrect (because it isn't); it may be old-fashioned, but so what? I'm not going to relearn spelling because fashions have changed. (anecdote warning) As it happens, I recall (again, before that second edition was published) seeing this very word mis-spelt (i.e., spelt with an "s") above the door of a pub; when I asked my parents they told me it was unusual but OK., the OED, like other reputable dictionaries, allows the verb "licence", so changing it to some other spelling is a not a change to conform with that dictionary. doesn't have consensus for these changes, and is edit-warring over them to boot. He should be asked to stop forthwith. Once he has an established consensus, he can of course go round "fixing" people's correct English to his heart's content, just like the people who go round taking the hyphens out of correctly-formed compound adjectives. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , you must have gone to school a very long time ago. Most dictionaries these days don't even include "licence" as a valid alternative verb spelling. MOS:S is very clear about which spelling we should use, and it also states that "Older sources use many archaic variants (such as shew for show), which are not to be used outside quotations except in special circumstances". This is all the consensus that I need. Now, if I was changing "license" into "licence" then you'd have a valid case to stop my actions, but going the other way is fully in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, and I strongly suspect that in the vast majority of cases, the use of "licenced" or "licencing" in Wikipedia articles was not a conscious decision by the writer to use the archaic variant, but instead a mistaken belief that it is the standard current BrE/Commonwealth spelling. This is borne out by the number of thanks I have received after my re-reverts in which I gave a fuller expanation. Move into the modern world Justlettersandnumbers; Wikipedia is not the place for archaic spellings. In any case, I've finished now, so I (probably) won't be fixing any more. Have a lovely day. Bazonka (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no, please don't stop. I love it when we argue about spelling on ANI. It's better than hyphens, and almost as good as dates. Have we done apostrophes yet? If not, please ping me when we do, I'd so hate to miss that. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * will undoubtedly be excited to know that while my last licence (see below) said "Driver Licence" the previous one said "Driver's Licence"! 220  of  Borg 04:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I just whipped out my NSW Australia "Driver Licence" to check, and it is spelled licenCe! Not so archaic, though it expired 17 months ago. Just saying ... 220  of  Borg 06:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just looked at all my paperwork associated with my licence, and it is spelt just like that - "licence". I would suggest that these edits are stopped as the spelling is disputed, and what constructive result can come out of changing them?? Mdann52 (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what it's about. In US English, it's always license. In British English, licence is a noun and license is a verb; the latter leads to "licensed bar" and I think the edits being made are to change text like the incorrect/archaic "licenced bar" to the correct "licensed bar". Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I have not changed any noun spellings. "Driver licence" is entirely correct in Australian English, but "Driver licencing" would be wrong. Bazonka (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The contempt show by many editors (often American) to alleged "archaic" British/Australian/Indian etc spelling is very disappointing. Interestingly, "licencing" is used in many of these countries. I was also surprised to see the rather aggressive and uncivil reply by User:Nyttend to the original poster given they gave me my only block for similar remarks. Equal treatment of editors? I don't think so. Nyttend suggests changing articles using British English to OED usage. Are they aware of the differences between Oxford spelling and broader British spelling? The OED uses -ize (which is, ironically, older) compared to standard -ise. In addition, I have discovered countless examples of official current use of licencing globally which I will post. AusLondonder (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I quote myself: Aside from when debate on spelling exists (e.g. Oxford spelling)... Equal treatment of sensible editing; see Randy in Boise, whom I'm routinely encountering, including multiple incarnations here.  Kindly demonstrate established dictionary usage of "licencing", because I can produce countless examples of official use for lots of misspellings.  Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This whole discussion is redundant now. I've fixed all of the spellings, so (like it or not) my work here is done. Bazonka (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmains and AWB
Would someone please remove Hmains' access to AWB immediately? Despite the lack of consensus for the project, and indeed opposition thereto at WT:NRHP, Hmains has singlehandedly created and populated most or all of the Category:Historic Districts on the national Register of Historic Places by state tree with AWB. These categories currently contain 9 subcategories and 3,611 pages, most or all of which were put into this tree by AWB edits like this one. Some of these even contained errors, e.g. putting an article into a nonexistent category, and despite his assurance that "I can and do fix any errors", it's up to other people to fix those errors. So once again, for flagrant violation of the WP:AWB rule three, ''Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale'', Hmains needs to have AWB access removed immediately. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. What is it -- aside from the errors -- that you find objectionable about these edits? BMK (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I re-quote the rules: Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue. Hmains has definitely not gotten consensus for these mass changes, which themselves were controversial at a now-archived discussion at WT:NRHP.  He's failed to follow the process, and he's given the project the finger by deciding to ignore that discussion and forcing through his preferred category setup.  Yesterday I reminded him to stop (the edit to his talk page immediately before the "I can and do fix any errors" diff), but instead of following the requirements and demonstrating or achieving consensus, he kept on going.  This is precisely the "being bold" situation that the rules prohibit; removing AWB from someone who uses it controversially should be just as simple as blocking an account that's being operated as an unapproved bot.  Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * PS, if you were asking for my reason for opposition to the edits themselves (why I would disagree with someone manually making just one edit of this sort), see rationale. Note the link to another clueless edit by Hmains some time back to a related category (the category is for all historic districts in the state, not just NR-listed districts); this isn't the first time he's made an incorrect or outright wrong series of AWB edits to categories in this topic.  Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I dont like it" does not make it inherantly controversial, nor does (in advance) of making the edits thinking possibly that someone somewhere will object make it controversial. If every time the possibility of someone objecting to a change made that change 'controversial' nothing would ever get done. I went back through 10 archives and the only discussion related to this was your comment after the fact, so I dont see how Hmain could have been expected to forsee his changes would be considered (by only one person from what I can see) controversial. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * * Agree with . It looks like this is the concensus  you're referring to,  if so, it doesn't really show a concensus. If I'm wrong, feel free to post the correct link. That said, I don't think he'd need permission from WP:NRHP, that would be more or less local consensus, just my .02  Kosh Vorlon   17:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * OK all, can I continue to create and populate the category tree Category:Historic Districts on the national Register of Historic Places by state either manually or using AWB (my choice based on what needs to be edited), and without user Nyttend continually threatening to get my edit and/or AWB use privileges taken away and without him doing mass revokes of my work as he did at the time he first posted his complaint here? Thanks.  Hmains (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither of you may want to hear this, but I think it might be wiser to bring the discussion back to WT:NRHP. Looking at the single previous discussion, I don't think anyone anticipated that it would generate that much feeling. If both of you can clearly lay out your preferences for the category hierarchy (I think I would have to doodle for a bit on scratch paper to work that out from the current discussion) and get people to take a close look at the pros and cons, I think a more robust consensus would develop. Not that I like making people jump through hoops, but a flurry of AWB edits is, in practice, a lot more intimidating to other editors than the same tweaks to a single article, and I think it's a good idea to secure a more robust basis for making the changes than "well, I can't actually be blocked for them." Choess (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I can certainly try this. Thanks.  Hmains (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Thanks Hmains (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Dozens, Thousands upon thousands of unnecessary redirects


I dropped a note about this to Drmies, who suggested I bring it here. There may be a history of such edits from this user, but the current issue is dozens of useless, if not puerile, redirects. 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect bombing seems to be the vandalism flavor of the day. (See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903.) That user ended up being identified as a sock puppet. Possible here also? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Endorse some kind of action if this continues; per my comments at User talk:Neelix, if I saw this kind of crap from a new account I'd block it instantly as a vandal-only account, and AGF only goes so far. Is there something in the water this week? I think this is the fourth "mass creation of pointless redirects" thread in the last few days. &#8209; iridescent 21:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked over his contributions but this is the fourth case of needless redirects over the past week. Something in the wire? Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at the SPI--'A window cleaner me' was the account I remember seeing do this recently, so this rang a bell when I came across it this afternoon. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix has created a few useful disambig and talk pages so I've kept those, but the heaps of redirects have been mass-deleted (useful tool!) and I'll leave a warning. The speed of editing suggests automated tools. GiantSnowman 21:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Turns out they're an admin. Concerning. GiantSnowman 21:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Neelix is flagged as an admin in my UI and their contribs go from Fractional Brownian motion to boobies!!!. It may be a compromised account. I notified the Bureaucrats mailing list. J bh  Talk  22:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I sense a compromised account. I recommend an immediate block until some talk page explanation is forthcoming. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a recent incident on the WP:BNB of admin accounts that were compromised. Could this also be one? I cannot fathom a logical reason that someone would create all of those infantile redirects. Dave Dial (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

My account has not been hacked. I agree that the terms and phrases are puerile, but I think we should have redirects for puerile terms and phrases. Considering that there seems to be so much opposition, I will not object to the redirects being deleted and I will not attempt to create more redirects in this vein, but I do think them valid. We have a wide and diverse reader base, and people can and do use search strings consisting of slang terms, both the silly and the crass. Neelix (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * who have all commented on Neelix's talk page on this matter. GiantSnowman 22:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My immediate reaction to Neelix's response? Very concerning from an admin, making redirects they admit are "puerile". GiantSnowman 22:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think the redirects puerile, but rather the terms. We have entire articles about puerile subjects because they are notable. That does not mean we should delete those articles. Neelix (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider, for example, Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, a featured article on a puerile subject. Neelix (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, because that's the title of the episode. Notice that we don't have holiday crap episode or South Park Xmas shit as redirects. Alansohn (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If they think links like Titty constructor, Boobie builder and a dozen variations --> Breast reconstruction and Tiny titties with many variations --> Micromastia and many similar things I strongly suggest they do not have the maturity and judgement we expect in out administrators.  J bh  Talk  22:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)‎
 * How on earth could you think Constructed titty and Constructions of the booby (and dozens of very similar variants) were valid redirects?! GiantSnowman 22:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with GiantSnowman. I can't believe you genuinely think Constructions of the titties or Tubular boobies are either appropriate redirects, or plausible search terms. (If you do believe that, we have an issue.) That you appear not to understand the difference between a redirect and an article, judging by your response above, looks to me like a serious WP:CIR issue. &#8209; iridescent 22:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think steps need to be taken to ensure Neelix is in control of his account. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neelix, if you are redirecting to appeal to the 'lowest common dominanator' of reader as claimed, by creating Little titties etc., why have you created redirects such as Hypoplastic tits? GiantSnowman 22:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FFS I just found Booby cancer, Booby milk, Booby cyst, Titty cancer, Titty milk - it goes on and on and they have been doing this since at least September. Those redirects just seem to be hidden in the hundreds of semi-automated edits they do per day. J bh  Talk  22:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * we need a crat to review, and consider possible emergency de-sysopping as an extreme, or at least some kind of CU check or something. GiantSnowman 22:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Shrinkages of the titties? OK, given how long this has been going on, I'd support at least a final warning, and I wouldn't oppose hauling Neelix in front of Arbcom if this continues. &#8209; iridescent 22:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I glanced through the pages GiantSnowman deleted and noticed one, Female figure (disambiguation), was a valid disambiguation page . There might be others. KateWishing (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I thought I'd unclicked all the disambig pages, now restored. GiantSnowman 22:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At the very least, the bolded terms in the lead of the Micromastia article are valid redirects and should be recreated. Neelix (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean, the bolded terms you just added? I am seriously considering indefblocking you. &#8209; iridescent 22:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not add any of those terms; they were already on the Tuberous breasts, which I merged into Micromastia today. I did not invent them. Neelix (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I ran a checkuser and he has been on the same IP since early September, of course - the creation of odd redirects go back that far as well. -- Versa geek  22:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So the IP changed around the same time as the strange edits? Interesting. Highly probable the account is compromised, I suggest a de-sysop and block. GiantSnowman 22:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The odd redirects started in September. See below. J bh  Talk  23:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If these were terms that were commonly searched by readers, then they would be useful (see WP:RFD). Fortunately, we have a tool for that:
 * Booby cancer - 8 hits in the last 60 days
 * Booby milk - 9 hits
 * Booby cyst - 5 hits
 * Titty cancer - 4 hits
 * Titty milk - 10 hits
 * Shrinkages of the titties - 10 hits, all on the same day
 * Clearly none of these are common searches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I do not object to the deletion of the redirects. If people are seriously concerned that my account has been compromised, there are several prominent editors who have met me in person who can confirm my identity off-Wiki. Neelix (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the redirects are particularly useful. I especially don't see the value of creating pages with titles like titty banged, frenchfucking, licks boobs, boobyfeeding, a trip down mammary lane, and so on; you've created thousands of these redirects. Wikipedia is not censored, but we're also not Urban Dictionary. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This goes back months, and there are literally thousands of them. If this is a compromised account, it's been compromised since at least December 2014 (when such fine redirects as Nudity of the thorax and Anti-trousers were created). &#8209; iridescent 22:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the account is compromised (at least not recently). This user has seemingly always had a proclivity for creating unusual redirects - this is just the first time it caught attention. -- Versa geek  22:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked around to see how wide this problem is. Here are the pages I checked: Redirects to Nipple discharge (Titty discharges etc.), Redirects to Breast cancer (Particularly bad including Titty tumors and Tumourous boobies among a dozen or so others) [Redirects to Breast cyst] (Cystic boobies, Tit cysts etc) Redirects to Breast implant (Titty implants, Boobyjobs etc) Redirects to Breastfeeding (Boob-feeds, Boobfeeding, Titty suckles, Tittyfed etc) . I am sure there are many more but I am all titty'd out. At the very least needs to clean up their mess. I also strongly suggest they state whether they created any other 'puerile redirects' on other subjects or if they just stuck to breasts.   J bh  Talk  22:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Jbhunley, follow this link, and keep on clicking "next 5000"—there are literally tens of thousands of these. It was going on long before his RFA (anyone for Twenty-three-heads, created 2009?), but it seems nobody noticed it at the time. &#8209; iridescent 22:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It looks like they started with this edit creating Titty-fucks on 4 Sept 2015 and got 'hooked-on-boobs' so to speak. Going back through the years I see a lot of what I would consider nearly pointless redirect creation by this editor over years and not much else but nothing like what occured from Sept 2015 on. J bh  Talk  23:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for creating unusual redirects. When creating them, I did not think the community in general would be against them. Again, I am very sorry. Neelix (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jbhunley that Neelix should clean all of these up. What a mess. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional Comment -- I have now went back months into this editors contributions, and the thousands upon thousands of absolutely puerile and useless redirects is staggering. Literally there are thousands and thousands just in the last several months. Something needs to be done about this, but I am not sure what. The editor also has many useful edits, but this type of behavior needs to be curtailed and/or there needs to be some type of promise made. Dave Dial (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to go back for years: way back in 2010, Neelix was blocked for rapid creation of inappropriate pages:, and their response at that time seems to have been much the same as now: . At least this pattern seems to rule out compromised account. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * [ec] Thank you all. GS, thanks for pushing that button. These redirects weren't just puerile and unnecessary, they were offensive. Far be it from me to psychologize this matter, but perhaps Neelix... etc. Given that there is no evidence for a compromised account, we are left with two issues, both of which made extra pressing given that Neelix is an admin. First, there's the use of tools, possibly; they were (briefly) blocked for something like that in 2010 (I haven't looked into the particulars of that). I find automated editing problematic to begin with, and I see I'm not the only one who questions what happened here and how it happened; we need to hear from Neelix what they were doing and how they were doing it. Remember that we have blocked and banned and topic-banned for automated or apparently automated edits. Second, I want to know what the hell they were thinking. I supposed someone could be looking for some of the terms, but Constructions of the titties is the title of a soft-porn novel, Tiny Tit is a character in a rejected Dickens novel, and Hypoplastic titties is a ridiculous conflation of high-brow and low-brow language that no person, high-brow or low-brow, would ever be looking for (there's two Google hits, though my posting this will probably up that). In short, they are offensive and ridiculous, and this is seriously unbecoming conduct. One wonders... etc. Given that we now desysop admins in a matter of hours for all kinds of stuff, I think it behooves you to start talking and giving some substance. I for one do not trust your judgment to make serious decisions, such as blocking or deleting or revdeleting, when it comes to content and behavior that can be called offensive. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not been using any automated processes or bots. I am simply a fast typist. I apologize again for my creation of these redirects. I promise not to do so again. I do not believe any of my non-redirect-related edits have been offensive. Please let me know if you would like any further comment from me. Neelix (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you could do something: cock the hammer, it's time for action. Start deleting while you're still an admin. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Side question: is the justification "to help out with user searches" even theoretically valid? It seems to me that the better Wikipedia's search engine gets, the less time we ought to be spending anticipating wacky user searches and clogging the Wikipedia namespace with preemptive redirects. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to explain here without finding examples, but quite often yes. If we can create a redirect for a common but unusual search term to a target article, then the redirect aids in searches, since the automated search engine might not deal well with that. That doesn't seem to be the case for any that Neelix has created, at least none that I've found. In fact, many that he created actually hinder the search engine, for example see what comes up in search results for "boobs": - many of the redirects we're talking about here come up, and they obscure potentially useful search results. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been of that opinion since about five years ago, too, when the search engine seemed to have got a lot better. Similarly, I habitually don't create s and for the obscure articles I translate, for example, since the search engine seems to handle it fine; of course there are exceptions that are usefully "ovverriden" by a useful redirect. Si Trew (talk)


 * While I can't say some the actions are appropriate (and I do have my own concerns about script-assisted editing, like others), I've realized from my time in real life that topics related to "naughty bits" get people in an abnormally strange, highly reactive state of mind. Same goes for "bad words." God help the people who combine them together, for a hammer of censorship awaits thee.  Combine that with the types of personalities that land on Wikipedia&mdash;particularly the ones that stick around&mdash;and, well, let's just say I'll be the first to admit that in real life (and/or within the aforementioned topics), I can be socially awkward.  Speaking to the other editors involved on this, I think that if you can't type or read the phrase "titty fucking" in this context (for example) without feeling uncomfortable or offended, then at least consider that your judgement may be biased in contradiction to WP:CENSOR and you may be over-reacting.  Apart from that, scrolling through  looks like a lot of good faith combined with an over-active imagination with a reduced filter.  For example, it's not beyond imagination that Mastopexy should need redirects from Titty lifting and Lift tits.  That's society's and (a lack of) education's doing, and it's not unreasonable to make an effort to help rectify that, particularly on things that are prone to institutionalized censorship.  Just sayin'.  I have a feeling that regardless, the fact he's now aware that the way he's gone about it is seen as problematic could be enough to stop it from happening again, but maybe I'm just optimistic. :P  -- slakr  \ talk / 01:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "at least consider that your judgement may be biased in contradiction to WP:CENSOR and you may be over-reacting": your social awkwardness is showing, dude. This is nothing about censorship; the censorship guideline says we don't include information just because it's offensive to some. That's very different from "it's offensive to some and completely lacks any encyclopedic purpose whatsoever". Since you've proclaimed the user to be rectifying society's blind spots, I'm curious if you can justify the following redirects:
 * Atrophy of the titties
 * Inflames titties
 * Tumorous boobies
 * Suckling of the titties
 * Segmentally remove titties
 * After you. Ironholds (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah Ironholds, the day has come that I agree with you. Slakr, society doesn't talk about "Atrophy of the titties", and if you can type "atrophy" you should be able to type something other than "titties". Titty fucking, that's an entirely different type of discourse. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. On 20 September he was into licking breasts, in all its permutations. Does Wikipedia offer workman's comp for RSI? (For me.) Drmies (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of this stuff is just dumb rather than offensive. I'm surprised the vocabulary never got any more creative; where's atrophy of the bazongas? But the worst examples are really bad, and the fact that they're mixed in with all the dumb stuff makes the whole thing worse. There's a sort of callousness in redirecting "tumorous boobies" to breast cancer or "tubular titties" to tuberous breasts (which is an often psychologically distressing congenital deformity) that Wikipedia really shouldn't be implicitly legitimizing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman deleted a number of non-redirects in his purge. Template:Leucopogon, Leucopogon rubricaulis, Clodia Pulchra (disambiguation), Scarce (disambiguation), Miss Sophie (disambiguation), Starpeace (disambiguation), Pone (surname), etc. KateWishing (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. I used nuke (as in the literal admin nuke tool.)  Almost all of the articles sucked.  His plant disambigs were primarily against policy, and some of them were just factually wrong.  Individual articles can be restored as needed but there's no way that people should sort through 80,000 articles when 99% of them are complete bullshit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAICT we're trying to quickly delete the offensive/immature stuff, not the unnecessary but harmless stuff. We have existing processes for dealing with factual inaccuracies. It's definitely overreacting to claim unspecified policy violations as a reason for indiscriminately deleting pages that aren't offensive because their author also created offensive ones. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you willing to fact check the sources on 80,000 articles? Because a lot of them were created with a poorly written bot that fucked up DB pulls and are factually inaccurate. If someone wants to autocreate species articles, they can do it the right, policy compliant way.  And we have a specific bot policy, that's not an 'unspecified policy violation'. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've finished going through the mass-deletions and I've manually restored a number of things that seem questionable. As noted before, we have processes to re-delete if necessary. — Earwig   talk  07:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * -This doesn't have anything to do with censorship. It's creating redirects with infantile wording just for shits and giggles. Taking serious subjects and creating redirects that are absolutely not real. Who the fuck is going to search Suckling of the titties instead of Breastfeeding? Or any of the other outright silly, made up redirects the editor made. On the other hand, I don't think there is a need to block, that's punitive, imo. As for if this goes further, that is up to Neelix. If he doesn't attempt to fix the problems he himself caused, why should the community allow him to retain his bit. If he does attempt to fix his childish bullshit, thena topic ban of redirects will suffice. Dave Dial (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggest that this should be brought to ArbCom
From WP:ADMIN: "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ... Repeated or consistent poor judgment. ... Administrators are expected to lead by example ... Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status." Although as far as has been detailed here, Neelix's creation of inappropriate redirects has not involved the use of his admin tools, that fact that this is a long-term behavior involving "tens of thousands" of redirects should at least raise the question of whether Neelix is fit to be an admin, as such egregious examples of poor judgment should not be tolerated from one "expected to lead by example." I believe that this should be taken to ArbCom for consideration of desysoping. BMK (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not opposed to ARBCOM necessarily but they are quite backlogged. What if Neelix pledges to clean up these thousands of redirects, and then abide by a topic ban from redirection? I mean, someone's going to have to clean these up, might as well be Neelix. I don't think that these creations necessarily point to admin abuse, just poor editing judgement. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Having good judgment is why admins get the big bucks. BMK (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with BMK; given that he's already been blocked for this, he's clearly not going to stop, and while this may not be admin abuse I have no confidence in his (I think from the titties-and-boobies we can safely assume this is a "him") judgement regarding potentially sensitive decisions. After looking over his page creation log, I think the total number of redirects is around 80,000, of which between 50-95%, depending on how generous you're feeling, are inappropriate (plus however many have already been deleted); this isn't just a one-off blip. &#8209; iridescent 23:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have stopped. I have promised to stop. I would be glad to delete whatever the community wants me to delete. Neelix (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd said delete every redirect you made which isn't entirely and completely vanilla. If you go too far, someone can tell you, or restore it themselves if they're an admin.More importantly in my mind is some kind of explanation to the community about what the fuck you thought you were doing. It's extremely hard to conceive of a motivation for this behavior which doesn't impact seriously on your fitness to be an admin.  So from my point of view, I'd say help clean up, as if you don't you're not going to have a chance in hell opf coming out of this with the bit intact; then explain yourself.  Only a convincing explanation is going to save your bacon. If you already know that there isn't a convincing explanation to be had, clean up the mess and then give up the bit, under a cloud. BMK (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , if you have to ask you'll never know. I have been away from this board, and I don't know if I deleted dozens or hundreds of your redirects. I can't see straight anymore. If you can't tell what's appropriate and what's not you have no business being an admin. As BMK says, what the fuck? I mean, walk up to an adult--I'm sure you know one--and tell them you just created a redirect called "Absence of tits". Now walk up to a breast cancer survivor, man or woman, and say that. You made this comment sixteen minutes ago: you have been sitting on your hands for sixteen minutes. Damn it man, do something. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neelix, to be blunt, your page creation log is such a mess that if you don't clean it up yourself, I'd seriously consider getting authorisation to run a damnatio memoriae bot over your account, and wiping every page which shows you as the creator and includes the string <tt>REDIRECT</tt>; I think my "5% are valid" above was actually a fairly generous assessment. At a minimum, I think you need a topic ban on creating any redirect other than as a result of page moves, and probably resignation as an admin or at least a firm written undertaking not to use the tools; given the lack of competence you've shown here (if you have any explanation for "continuing the exact same behaviour you were blocked for" that doesn't include the phrase "lack of competence", I'd love to hear it), I would think every admin action you make from now on would be legitimately open to challenge. This may sound harsh, but it's considerably less than the anvil Arbcom will throw at you if this does go that far. &#8209; iridescent 23:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You want him to give up the "bit" because he's obsessed with boobies? LjL (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An obsession with boobies is fine when it's not reflected in an editor's (much less admin's) work on Wikipedia. Neelix can keep his obsession, just not the tools at the same time. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization <font color="#000666">Talk   00:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was more unsure about which "bit" was to be given up, as I only know of one that causes boobie obsession... nevermind, I was trying to lighten this up a bit. LjL (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It just seems so childish and Neelix has been editing here for 9 years. These are pages a high school vandal would make, not an experienced editor. I just don't understand. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking perhaps an incredibly WP:POINTy demonstration that Wikipedia is not censored, but I'm not really sure. LjL (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This needs to go to arbcom. It's massive abuse of an unapproved automated tool to create absurd redirects.  It's absolutely godawful judgement at best, and makes it apparent he does not have the judgement needed to use the admin toolset.  Also, Neelix, if you create any more of this shit before this situation is resolved, I'm  blocking you for a severe violation of bot policy and emailing arbcom, crats, and anyone else I can think of to emergency desysop you as a level I until it's proven you aren't compromised, because the mere fact that you are an admin and did this suggests you are, and suggesting a level II desysop to arbcom. Frankly Neelix if there wasn't some value in you participating in this discussion I would block you for the sheer scale of violation of the bot policy immediately anyway. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree Arbcom needs to handle this. If they were not an admin account I expect the community would be handing out an indef. The massive lack of judgement is not something we should accept in an admin. It looks like they have done very few admin actions in the last year particularly considering the thousands of redirects. Based on a diff I saw above it looks like they were inserting some of the more 'creative' terms into at least one article. Even after all that has been going on here they have not started cleaning up their mess by deleting these redirects [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?action=view&user=Neelix&type=delete]. To me that shows a lack of responsibility to go with the lack of judgement. J bh  Talk  23:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm going to add something.  - delete all these redirects en masse immediately, or I am going to block you.  This would be a totally uncontroversial block if you weren't an admin and it's such a huge violation of bot policy and such horrible judgement that I'm comfortable blocking you regardless of the fact that you are a sysop. "A trip down mammary lane"?? Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See my comment above; cleaning this up will require a damnatio memoriae bot to wipe every page showing him as the creator, or at least every page which includes the string <tt>REDIRECT</tt>. I estimate there are roughly 80,000 problematic redirects—follow this link and keep hitting "next 5000" to get an idea of the scale of the problem we're dealing with here, and how long this has been going on. &#8209; iridescent 23:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This link gets you to the goods (so to speak) much faster. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Even most of his species disambig pages violate policy. I've contacted him off-wiki and if he doesn't start mass deleting his own shit, I'm fully intending on blocking him 30 minutes from my original comment, massdeleting everything I can, and emailing every body capable of executing an emergency desysop because this is either a compromised account or the goddamn worst judgement I have ever seen an admin use - and that's saying a lot. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kevin, a block would be punitive, IMO, at this juncture (though believe me, it would feel good). So would yanking his bit. I mean, I don't think he deserves it, but I'm not a fan of yanking in the first place. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We regularly block people for violations much smaller than this, and on top of that there's yet to be any evidence that he's not compromised. If he wasn't an admin, AIV would've blocked him as a matter of procedure for literally 1/20,000th of this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And that would be yet another needless block. I suppose I'm not as triggerhappy as some people are. But Neelix isn't editing, so there's nothing that a block would achieve--if I had to psychologize, which I'm not supposed to do, I'd say he's sitting in a corner feeling pretty miserable. We have no evidence that the account is compromised, or the account would have to have been compromised months or even years ago--apparently he's being making crappy redirects for a long time. What we need from Neelix is not that he sit in a corner and cry, nor that he be blocked and look at the screen--we need him to get off his fucking ass and start acting constructively. If he's as smart as he looks he comes up with something clever, or maybe he marked his calendar for especially happy and productive days, like 23 September must have been. If we can nuke by date, that sort of stuff might be helpful. But blocking an editor who is not being disruptive is purely punitive. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , Neelix is still sitting on his hands, I suppose, and I'm developing some serious RSI. We need an engine that can pluck out all the redirects with those offensive terms and their permutations and delete them--I thought I made some progress but I've done only 120 or so, and I'm done. Neelix, I think Kevin is not joking, and neither is Iridescent. I'm the good cop here, but I'm done. You better start acting. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just gone through all 80,000 page creations, and he was creating nonsense like Anti-trousers years ago. This isn't anything new, it's just the first time it's come to light. If Segmental removal of the titties doesn't turn red in the next 10 minutes I'm blocking him. &#8209; iridescent 23:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would honestly support indeffing but we all know all kinds of shite would probably kick off so Arbcom is the 2nd best option I think, Those redirects are beyond moronic and quite honestly like everyone here I'm rather confused on why the bloody hell they were ever created in the first place... – Davey 2010 Talk 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought admins were admins to perform administrative functions, not to be protected from [indef] blocks for egregious behavior. LjL (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In this case, the edits were last made about 2 months ago, so any blocking would be punitive and not accomplish anything as they are not currently being created. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Check the deleted contribs. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't see those, just the ones back in September. Still, Neelix has stopped now, so blocking without a specific blocking discussion and consensus (provided he doesn't go and start up again) would not be useful. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I'm ready to block if his first edit on his return is anything other than (a) an undertaking never to create a redirect again other than as a result of a non-contentious page move, (b) a resignation of the sysop bit or (c) a bulk deletion of the vast majority of his creations, I agree that blocking without giving him a chance to explain himself won't serve any useful purpose, since one would hope even someone this clueless will have the sense not to start creating more. &#8209; iridescent 00:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. If he can't tell why the redirects were completely loony then he should stay far away from creating them. Blocking or desysoping need further discussion. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My only problem with that response is that if this editor was not an admin, he would have been indef'd immediately, without hesitation. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? I don't think so. Suppose [insert your favorite veteran editor] showed incredibly poor judgement that suddenly came under the spotlight. If they stopped, would you still indef immediately or wait for discussion? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he sure as hell would have been. AIV regularly blocks for four tiny instances of vandalism. The only reason I haven't blocked him is I threw it to arbcom. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * AIV blocks for vandalism after a final warning. You may want to drop by more often. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , this is high school-level vandalism. I mean all of these redirects on titties and boobs? It's something a 14 year old would do. It it was brought to AIV, I think a block would have happened right away. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean, I just deleted Shrink tits and Titty-fucks, for god's sake! Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Titty-fucks is still around! Please nuke! —Мандичка YO 😜 13:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That page and another was restored by an admin and according to some folks these are all legitimate redirects: Tit fuck, Tit fucking, Tit-fuck, Tit-fucking, Titfuck, Titfucking, Tits fuck, Tittie fuck, Titty fuck, Titty fucking, Titty sex, Titty-fuck, Titty-fucking, Titty-fucks, Tittyfuck, Tittyfucking and Tittyfucks. It makes me a little nauseous. I don't think all 17 varieties are useful. Maybe some editor can nominate them for deletion at Redirects for discussion. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've been on the bus since my last comment so I missed most of what happened in the meantime. I know I'm playing devil's advocate, but I can see this coming down to a good-faith misunderstanding of the purpose of creating redirects on Neelix' part. I really don't think he did this to be disruptive, I mean, there's just no evidence of harmful intent here. He's agreed to stop, although he had agreed to stop five years ago and here we are. But does that really require desysopping? Anyone can create redirects, this isn't misuse of the tools, so desysopping won't prevent him from doing this again. Definitely we should make absolutely clear that this sort of thing is inappropriate, but if he recognizes that and cleans up his mess, then the problem is solved, really. I don't know, I just really don't like punishing users for no good reason. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The majority of the non-boob redirects I can see as actually helpful to one degree or another. I think it's just the sheer number of boob redirects that is causing people to feel overwhelmed. Looking back through the edits a ways, those are the only ones I have a problem with. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously,Nihonjoe? You think Anti-trousers, Nudity of the thorax etc etc etc are "actually helpful to one degree or another"? &#8209; iridescent 00:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please. To quote, "The majority of the non-boob redirects I can see as actually helpful to one degree or another." I would lump those ones you mentioned in with the boob redirects. Give me a little credit. ··· 日本穣 · <small  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd have more sympathy if this wasn't the 4th time we've had a problem on ANI this week about excessive redirect creation. In one week! Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But what does that have to do with Iridescent taking my comment out of context? I haven't been creating weird redirects, so whether or not this is the 4th or 40th time has little to do with this discussion. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Should Neelix be asked not to act as a Wikipedia Online Ambassador (as mentioned on his user page) pending further discussion? NebY (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't see a need for that, unless the class in question is a particularly politically sensitive hot potato. "Online Ambassador" really doesn't mean much more in most cases than explaining markup and handing out attaboys, and "not understanding WP:POFR" isn't really relevant to whether he can explain how to complete a pd-old template. &#8209; iridescent 00:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. Suggestion withdrawn. NebY (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It saddens me to say that I agree with the proposal in that this issue needs to be presented to arbcom. Neelix has volunteered a lot of time, and I mean A LOT of time towards the project and making positive contributions to it. However, this is a serious violation. Judging just by the amount of responses that this very ANI has generated, it's clear that the community's trust in Neelix's ability to hold administrator rights has been called into question, and by a significant number of other editors (including myself, to be quite honest). Administrators are supposed to be leading examples of Wikipedia policy and trusted by the community to protect Wikipedia and enforce its policies when doing so is needed. I completely understand that mistakes happen; nobody is perfect and we cannot expect perfection. However, given Neelix's tenure on Wikipedia, the fact that he holds admin rights, and the fact that this isn't his first time being blocked for this very thing - one thing is very clear: Neelix is aware of this policy, and he knows better. Admins should know and understand the bot policy, and there is absolutely no excuse for violating it (especially to the extent that it was violated, and given the insane number of unnecessary redirects that this violation resulted in). The first time, it's a mistake; the second or subsequent time, it's a potential problem.
 * Neelix, you're a great contributor here (minus the, uhh, I'll call them "setbacks") and you've volunteered so much of your time to Wikipedia; I don't question your overall loyalty towards the project and I want you to know that. That being said, I think that you should save the community the time required for filing an ArbCom case, as well as ArbCom's time with everything involved with closing it, and voluntarily resign your administrator flag "under a cloud". At this point, I'm very certain that this issue will be escalated and presented to ArbCom if you don't - and you will almost certainly have the flag removed by them. As serious as this violation of policy and trust is, and how frustrated as many other editors may be over this, I hope that you view this as a learning opportunity and walk away from all of this with a positive mind and with no hard feelings. Whatever outcome results from this, I wish you the best of luck.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment As a non-admin editor previously blocked for 24 hours for "incivility" and threatened with an indef block for such incivility, I certainly find it interesting that creation of 80,000 malicious redirects is apparently not grounds for a block of any length. That aside, the thing I find most troubling about this is the really vile misogyny. How can Wikipedia attract talented female editors in greater numbers when such crude behaviour is occurring? Behaviour that amounts to sexual harassment, in my view. I am not in favour of censorship. Swearing? Fine by me. Political and religious criticism. Great. This garbage is just not acceptable though. Run-and-rape game redirects. Redirects implicity mocking cancer sufferers "tits" or lack of. This is sickening. I would really like to hear from the editor involved. I read his userpage and he seems like a decent individual. Why did you do this? Do you understand that you did wrong? Even more disturbing is the fact that some editors have justified and excused this damaging and time-wasting behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * AusLondonder - He is not currently being considered for a block because blocks are meant to be preventative. He has stopped the behavior, meaning that a block would not serve its proper use.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Having slept on this, I remain convinced that the matter needs to be raised with ARBCOM. GiantSnowman 10:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Adminbot
Putting this in a separate section to avoid getting mixed in with the user-conduct issues Assessing 80,000 redirects, the majority of which are problematic, would wreck WP:RFD. What are people's thoughts on either (a) authorising a damnatio memoriae adminbot to nuke every redirect created by Neelix, or (b) having a bot generate a list of all his redirects and dividing them up into manageable chunks for admins to go through and winnow out the nonsense? &#8209; iridescent 00:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Damnatio memoriae is the only reasonable option. 80,000 redirects is too much work to put on the active admins when most of it is complete shit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe a few of the bot regulars can help. Can one of you whip up something to make a list of all of these that's easier to go through than the contributions list? ··· 日本穣  ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of redirects created by and only edited by user Neelix: User:Anomie/Neelix list. Note: if there are further comments for me, please ping. Anomie⚔ 13:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bot yes, but erase from history, no. Due to the sheer number, a mass-revert is the most feasible option (other than "do nothing").  However, a list of what was removed and what it pointed to should be kept so people who care to do so can manually go through the list and re-create any good ones.  The list should also mark if the redirect was created while the editor was blocked or not, and a request that if the latter are restored, the restoring editor put "originally created by User:Neelix at [timestamp]" in the edit summary.  No objections if those created in violation of a block or ban are left off the list entirely. I highly recommend that the list be marked noindex.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that the majority of the redirects are not so problematic. (Though I agree that the swaths involving boobies and titties have got to go.)  The namespace is chock-full of needless redirects, and while Neelix has certainly been overzealous (if not monomaniacal) about creating them, most of them are not causing any particular or immediate harm.  What would make sense is to find a way of automatically culling all unnecessary redirects, regardless of who created them.  The algorithm is simple: if a given redirect meets both of these criteria, it can safely be deleted:
 * it is not linked to
 * entering its name into Wikipedia's search engine yields the linked-to page among the first N hits.
 * (Choose N to taste, maybe 3 or 5.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's not that simple; there are some redirects, such as paintings which have been exhibited under more than one title, or people who have changed their name, where even if there's currently no incoming traffic to the redirect, there's a reasonable presumption that at some point someone might want to link to it. &#8209; iridescent 00:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging some RfD regulars to comment on the criteria here: . I would add to this any that are redirects from moves, as these are often kept due to the possibility of off-wiki incoming links. RfD can certainly handle questionable cases; we do mass nominations quite frequently. Based on what I've seen from Neelix' history, there really aren't that many questionable cases. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This might be a little hard to program, but I would support a mass deletion of redirects under a certain page-view threshold. Something like 1 view/day or something that is normally within a certain the range of 'implausibility' on RFD. I've nominated several of Neelix's redirects for deletion at RFD and looking at his talk page, several others have done the same. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm queasy with the idea that adminsitrators make unilateral deletion decisions (in their programming/parameterization of a bot). In the case of "normal" bot edits it can be hard enough to undo the work of a general-purpose bot that is run with "bad" parameters (I have had run-ins on more than one occasion with one particular ex-admin who has done this),but with deletion, it is almost impossible even to know that the bot has run.
 * The problem is not the "80,000 redirects" but how many target each article. For many years I have expressed my view that too many (similar) redirects to an article hinder rather than help a search, but like wasps at a picnic it is difficult to argue that any in particular is a problem.
 * The RfD criteria here do not really cover mass listings well; presumably the more redirects there are to a given article, the greater the likelihood that each will get fewer hits. However, a bot should run under the same Delete/Keep criteria (in Redirect/Deletion reasons) as mere human non-admin editors such as myself. If the gap is in the criteria, we should change the criteria:; what we shouldn't do is ignore it by unilaterally have redirects disappear without trace en masse in some Stalinistic purge. (I am not invoking Godwin's law here but trying to make a reasonable analogy, because the problem with deletion in particular is that it leaves little trace and is much harder to undo than a mere edit.)
 * The criterion suggested above for "if it is not linked to" would need to be qualified (my general qualification in RfD discussions is "not linked to from article space", but "user-facing space" might be better), because by listing it etc. it will cause it to be linked to. However, I am rather concerned that redirects disappear on the unanimous decision of one administrator (the bot's keeper) with no discussion or forewarning. Or is it suggested we have a kinda "Proposed mass deletion" page that one could add to one's watchlist? How often would the bot run? If that page were updated too frequently, I doubt many would check it. Si Trew (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what's going on here since this whole thread is a mess, but it seems like the point of it is that Neelix has been determined to create problematic redirects. My only input on this that may be helpful is that sometime in the lady couple of months, I nominated several redirects created by Neelix that targeted Profanity or Minced oath. Hopefully that helps with something here as I'm not sure if deleting every redirect wholesale is wise since some might be useful; they would have to be cherry picked. However, with that being said, I weakly support some sort of sanctions on Neelix creating redirects, suggesting that they use WP:AFC/R for every single redirect from here on out. Steel1943  (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of the redirects are valid, though I suspect the search engine would find the articles easily enough anyway. For example, Microhyla ornata has 18 redirects, all created by Neelix: ornamented frog, ornamented frogs ... ornate narrowmouthed frog, ornate narrow mouthed frog, ornate narrow-mouthed frog.... One or two of those would ordinarily be worth keeping, if anyone's ready to put in the effort of panning for them. NebY (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hatnotes too?  has added some questionable hatnotes as well:    Rwessel (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh man, what a mess we have here. Immediate deletion was probably not a good idea, either. This could have been approached more methodically—you broke a GA, for example. I need to make a phone call, but I'll respond to Nihonjoe's question right after. — Earwig   talk  01:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, definitely a mess. We basically just need a bot to make a list so they can be gone through much more methodically instead of a nuke-from-orbit approach. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Earwig, mass deletion hasn't happened. There are still tens of thousands of inane redirects. 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has (at least it was started). ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Y'all better hide this under the rug fast before it reaches the press! LjL (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, LjL, hiding embarrassing incidents is always worse than the incident itself. Throughout history, it always backfires. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment May I suggest a semi-automated approach in dealing with the 80k redirects? We could have bots identify entries with certain keywords like "boobies" and such and then subject to RfD the less questionable redirects. I agree that the sheer number of redirects may overwhelm the Rfd but a systematic batch nomination would slowly reduce them to manageable size-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And who is to decide what is more or less questionable? That is what RfD is for. boobies are lovely birds. Si Trew (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the keywords to the bot users' discretion and the editors here who are more familiar with the case. I am a fan of great tits. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm currently running a database query that grabs all of this user's redirects and runs them through a profanity filter. I'll throw the TSV up somewhere when I'm done so people can use it as a baseline for a bot. Ironholds (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest running a bot to delete all redirects - if they are genuinely useful (only a very tiny minority!), they will be re-created in due course by good faith editors. GiantSnowman 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here ... the "really odd redirects" occurred after an IP address change? And IP2601 as a non-registered editor just "happened" to see them and then canvassed a bunch of admins to make absolutely sure Neelix got shat upon? Am I missing something? Neelix was organized and persnickety (to a fault) in his pre-September edits. He suddenly changed IP addresses, and went off the deep end.

Spoofing known IP addresses is not impossible (far from it, it appears), nor are "Joe Jobs" impossible (not even unlikely in a case like this). But we are united that we must do something drastic here? AFAICT, the more likely version is that a real registered editor (likely an admin who has seen the IP address for Neelix?) parallel edited the account - knowing most editors do not look at all their own contributions in the list. That person bides their time, then shows up as a mystery IP whistle-blower (this is far from unheard-of on Wikipedia) and wants Neelix gone as fast as possible.

If so, then the person who should be sanctioned is likely whoever is the faux whistle-blower. I decline to believe IP2601 is a random passer-by here. Collect (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, what have you been smoking? It has been reiterated several times by now that the edits do not just go as far back as September, but in fact, "inane" redirects are a long-term behavior, and even one that Neelix was previously blocked for. LjL (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * And I'm sorry, Collect, but that's a groundless hypothesis--it makes my skin crawl and underscores why I've tried to leave this site so many times--no good deed goes unpunished here. In spare time I frequently drop in at the recent changes page--do many administrators do that, to get a fuller understanding of how much crap flows by, a lot of which is caught quickly, but much of which seems to get through the sieve? It's a way to kill time while I'm simultaneously writing or corresponding, and I happened upon these redirects because, as Drmies noted at his talk page, I seem to have a good nose for this sort of stuff. Drmies, Bbb23, Kafka Liz and SandyGeorgia know who I am. Is it now necessary for us to summon character references on my behalf? For those who remain curious, my IP changes with exasperating frequency because I have a poor rural connection, and often unplug in hopes of temporarily improving it. But I welcome any and all IP checks if it helps establish my credibility. 2601:188:0:ABE6:80B1:14A7:1EB4:5451 (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Collect That is a disgusting and unacceptable attack on the IP editor and a complete breach of WP:AGF. AusLondonder (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it is a matter of when AGF is good and when it does have problems. In general, Wikipedia has always seemed to look askance at IPs who edit from multiple IP addresses and decline to actually register as an editor with a username. (see AE discussions about allowing anonymous complaints being brought)  And if you are in a really sparsely populated area, then I will gladly accept "bad connections." Warm regards. Collect (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are talking garbage. Thank goodness this matter was brought up. Frankly I wouldn't care what motivated a reporter (or "faux whistleblower" as you term them, in violation of WP:NPA) anyway. No requirement exists for registration. Wikipedia is anonymous, even with usernames. I don't know who you are, even though you have a username. Neelix can easily create other accounts if he wanted. He would be just as anonymous as the IP. AusLondonder (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And let's remember about WP:EQUAL in the course of this incident, in both directions. LjL (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I've said before, either here or at Drmies' page: I choose to edit as an IP for reasons that are innocuous to others, but are valid to me. As long as I'm working here constructively, it is nobody's business. We all get that, I thought. I write professionally, am the subject of a bio here, and prefer to keep some distance between my edits here and my real life. In the course of reverting vandalism as a registered account, I was made uncomfortable by threats from vandals. And I forgot to add this: I like presenting a moving target that vandals can't easily get a handle on--they're less inclined to waste their time coming after an IP. If I were destructive, the Dr, Bbb23 or other admins who don't know me would shut me down. If a user wants to go after me for filing a legitimate report here, that's their prerogative, and I wish them luck. In the end, unless I've done something disruptive to Wikipedia, it will be seen as harassment. It is, in fact, as threatening to me as the bile of vandals. 2601:188:0:ABE6:80B1:14A7:1EB4:5451 (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed ban on creation of redirects
Since it seems a straight out block is off of the table I propose that be indefinitely community banned from creating any redirects not resulting from page moves.
 * Support as proposer. Neelix has shown poor judgement in the mass creation of redirects. Since this discussion has opened he has not started to clean up his mess, even when asked to. Not even the a minimal response to 's "If Segmental removal of the titties doesn't turn red in the next 10 minutes..." when it was pointed out by  that "Neelix is still sitting on his hands..." earlier in this thread. This shows not only a lack of judgement but an incredible lack of responsibility as well.  J bh  Talk  00:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as co-proposer a few threads above. Neelix should not create redirects, that's a no-brainer. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, sure, but here's the thing. If we don't block him now--and I don't think we have a reason to, besides to use as a stick when we have no carrots--then someone will block him the moment he makes the next idiotic redirect. (Where we draw that line, that's up to the admin who happens to be looking at it.) So a topic ban is already happening, practically speaking. I think the bigger question is whether we trust this editor with the admin bit, considering this piss-poor judgment. Imagine if The Atlantic got wind of this story, which actually has some meat on its bones. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I am amazed he was not blocked right out of the gate. I would dearly like to see bit-blind blocking in this kind of situation. By giving a formal topic ban it gives some cover to the poor blocking admin and the shit-storm that would pop up if they blocked on their own initiative. I would also love to see de-sysops for 'loss of the communities confidence' but do not expect that either. So... Yes... I can see the headlines now "Wikipedia administrator with juvenile fixation on boobies spams Wikipedia with offensive tit links" or some such. This is a 'customer facing' issue unlike the the 'house facing' problem currently 'in the news'. I bet it would be easy for the press to tie them together though. Bah. J bh  Talk  01:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, paradoxically, since I've already said (and meant) that if he doesn't give this undertaking I'm blocking him the moment he returns to editing. I dislike formal, written, topic bans, unless they're absolutely necessary; generally, to put a stop to a long-running, festering dispute. They serve as marks of Cain, and encourage assorted busybodies to pay undue attention to the editor in question's contributions in the hope of spotting a technical violation of the rules. As a thought experiment, imagine Neelix gives up the redirects and devotes his time to writing, and at some point creates an article on a book which was published under different names in North America and Britain/Ireland (this is not uncommon), and creates a redirect from the alternative title. Under the letter of a formal topic ban, this would result in his instant blocking; if you don't think there are admins who would block in these circumstances, I suggest you have a read through some Arbcom enforcement logs. &#8209; iridescent 01:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think what you're saying is that you intend to enforce this proposed topic ban, informally, regardless of the outcome here and without formally recording it in whatever log these things get recorded in. If that is what leads to the situation being resolved, then I'm all for it, and I'm sure you're right about block-happy admins. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If he spent time doing other things for a year or so lifting the ban would not be a major issue. If he wants to create a redirect for an article he actually creates before then he can ask for someone to create it. It would show his judgement has improved. We work with the tools we have and here all we really have are bans and blocks once we have lost trust in an editor's judgement and editorial responsibility. J bh  Talk  01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support with modification. The silliness needs to stop instantly, but I take Iridescent's point. Perhaps a limitation of two redirects per day, both of which must be undisputably sensible.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with modification. I like Newyorkbrad's suggestion of a limit on the number of redirects per day. The number can be up for negotiation. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm frankly more alarmed at the redirects like Run-or-rape games, a type of which he has also created a large number(scroll about 1/3 of the way down), than I am at boobies, though boobies was more than bad enough to start with. While Neelix has also created much more normal redirects (plenty of tree frogs!), the interspersing of utterly inappropriate ones is enough for me to support removing him from the area entirely. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fluffernutter; I removed all those--there is very little justification for those redirects, and the plethora of it actually suggested we were dealing with an attempt to establish it as acceptable terminology. (Kind of running out of AGF too here. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Sorry, I'm a hard ass, and there's absolutely no reason that this editor should ever create a redirect for the rest of his Wikipedia editing life. If he needs one created, let him ask someone responsible to create it. (I'm also fully in agreement with Liz, the only reason he hasn't been blocked is that he's an admin.  I don't say that as a slam against the various admins in this discussion, I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed, but there is absolutely no doubt that a rank-and-file editor would have been blocked by now.) BMK (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is punishment, and punishment is what makes people indignant, detached and ultimately unhappy. If they're the sort to abide, all they'll have learnt is obedience. The encyclopaedia is in no immediate danger from Neelix, who has - for the time being - stopped creating redirects. If, in a month's time or so, we've made no progress with reaching an understanding, I might then support a topic ban. And could we stop with the theatrics? Yes, iridescent and Kevin, you possess a block button. Well done. Alakzi (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have a block button, which I greatly prefer to not use, and have actively argued against the blocks of multiple people in recent weeks. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've not commented on what you've done in the recent weeks; I've remarked on your comments here, in this thread, where you and iridescent are repeating that you will block on repeat violation, as if that's gonna make them understand what they're doing is wrong. You might succeed in intimidating them, but that is no "success" at all. Alakzi (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel that it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on this following events a few days ago. Sorry, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 02:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, and I think we also need a desysop. SarahSV (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – absolutely not. This is far too premature. We still have a lot to figure out. A shamefully large number of the deletions made just now were incorrect. — Earwig   talk  03:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, are you willing to sort through 80k articles and manually check sources on each one? It makes infinitely more sense to delete them all and selectiely restore ones that turn out to be useful or necessary.  You restored more than one species article that were clearly done using a poorly written bot that fucked up a DB pull and are factually inaccurate.  If someone wants to autocreate species articles, they can write a working bot, get it approved through BAG, and write actually accurate articles instead of leaving this many piles of crap around the wiki relying on people to check the sources of 80,000 articles. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I fear "delete first, ask questions later" is exactly the wrong approach to take here. You're going to need to provide stronger evidence that he was using a bot. I know what bots are, and this does not look like one at all. — Earwig   talk  03:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, there seems to be a bit of confusion. I have only restored one species article so far (Leucopogon rubricaulis, mentioned by us earlier). There were a few species synonyms that I restored too, which I individually verified, but not articles, and I can't imagine an argument against them. — Earwig   talk  03:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support with modification - ban the use of any sort of automation to create redirects. I think that the ban should instead be that Neelix "be indefinitely community-banned from creating redirects using any form of automation". This will give him the freedom to learn from this incident and continue to contribute without being completely shut out of this area, but it naturally sets limits on how many he can make by requiring him to do this completely manually.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neelix claims above not to be using any automation "I have not been using any automated processes or bots. I am simply a fast typist." so this does not address the problem.  J bh  Talk  03:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I LOL'd. Hard. Also, I see your point and I'm inclined to agree with you, Jbhunley. This is obviously a ridiculous statement, but you point out something important: we don't have the full ability to prove for 100% sure that an edit was done using automation outside the edit summary and tags. This may present a problem.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ArbCOm has gotten around the problem in the past by simply defining automated or semi-automated edits as anything that looks like automated or semi-automated edits, so if Neelix says he's not using automation and is just a fast typist -- well,that's bad luck for him. He'll have to learn how to type slower. (But not, in my opinion, to make redirects, which he should be indefinitely blocked from doing.) BMK (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * BMK - I've seen those ArbCom cases that closed defining "automation" as well. I do remember the definition being worded quite openly (probably to allow "leeway" as far as proof goes). I simply followed up to acknowledge Jbhunley's response and give it some merit. I still stand behind my vote, and that he should only be banned from using automation to create any redirects.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. From my outlook, what matters is fixing the harm done. I've looked at the logs and there seem to be 75,000+ redirects. I've never seen anything like it. Many aren't "dodgy" as to wording, but redirect off more or less useless permutations which, if done for the whole article space, could add something more than fifty million pages to the website. Even given that en.WP's search engine has always been weak (tip: a somewhat mangled Google search will most often bring up the sought-after article), redirects of this kind weren't the way to deal with it, indeed. My take is, I don't know how much Neelix could lend to the scripted/automated cleanup and human checking this mess is going to need. Ask him to agree not to do anything like this again. If he does agree and then does it again, it would show some worrisome lack of understanding or grip on himself and a swift de-sysop (along with perhaps a short block, if the timing called for it) would very likely follow. By the way, I don't think that if a non-admin with a long, otherwise helpful contrib history had done somthing like this in good faith as say, a time killer (however cluelessly), that it would have ended with a lasting block. Also, it doesn't look to me as though he used automation. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Redirects are useful, and, yes, some redirects need to be puerile to connect to all the subjects we cover. I can see how one can get carried away putting synonym with synonym. bd2412  T 04:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support idea but oppose a hard ban. Allow him a few redirects a day without discussion plus an unlimited number provided each one has been proposed on the target article's talk page for at least 3 days and has had zero opposition.  Also, a temporary ban on creating redirects until the current mess is cleaned up (i.e. formalize what is probably already a de-facto super-double-secret-probation situation) followed by a longer (3-6 months seems reasonable) ban on creating redirects in topic areas where, based on the cleanup results, his redirects in that topic area are more harmful than helpful.  The net result is he will be able to create as many redirects as he wants in most topic areas as long as he proposes them on the affected articles' talk pages and nobody objects for 3 days.  He will also be able to create a few redirects without discussion every day, as long as they are outside the problematic topic areas.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with bd2412. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. This is the most ludicrous case of boneheadedness we've seen in quite some time. It goes beyond disruptive -- it's positively destructive and is a form of trolling. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support total ban from creating any redirects at all. GiantSnowman 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Alakzi. I trust this will stop because of understanding. "Other than page moves" will not work because someone eager to create redirects could simply move an article from one name to the next, several times. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - I'm all for giving people second chances but half of what he's created you'd expect from trolls & vandals ... Not from an admin with a 10 year history, AGF only goes so far and considering he's created thousands I think AGF went out the window a long time ago!, I don't believe the limit would work as it would mean someone would no doubt have to monitor him and to be totally honest we all have better things to do than to monitor someone 247 & 365 days of the year, The topic ban would hopefully stop it all. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BD2412 and Alakzi. Neelix evidently got carried away, but he is now aware that the community does not want these redirects, and has promised not to create them anymore. (Of course, if the behavior continues in the future despite this discussion, then a ban would be worth considering.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Bare minimum sanction, assuming that a desyssop will also follow. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After spinning through the first 10,000+ redirects, it seems that the massive, overwhelming majority are good faith redirects. Not sure what to do about the small minority of bad ones, but anyone thinking this is a case of 80,000 vandalistic redirects needs to do a little basic research. Here's THE LINK again... Carrite (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose People do dumb things once in a while. I would support an option like this if the problem is repeated. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize this has been going on for years, right? And he was blocked for it in 2010? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Level-headed in person. Never imagined I'd ever see this level of immaturity, but then I didn't know about the 2010 block. I can't help but also notice that Neelix's response to these revelations sounds eerily similar to five years ago. Sorry, Neelix. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Jbhunley.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a limit of three redirects per day, with an option for the community to implement a full topic ban if behaviour continues. I've now briefly looked at about 20,000 of Neelix's redirect contributions. The same frantic level of creation of not-particularly-useful redirects has been going back to 2010 at least and quite probably much further. We all make mistakes, but a mistake that goes on for 5 years and over tens of thousands of edits is WP:CIR territory. Neelix makes useful contributions but adding redirects like (just to pick randomly) Judgmentalistically, Judgementalistically, Judgmentalistic, Judgementalistic, Judgmentally, and Judgementally isn't making Wikipedia better for anyone. A limit of three per day gives him the latitude to create content-focussed redirects without going over the top. I broadly concur with The ed17's judgment. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * times 3 Oppose. I think everyone has their rampages and their... um... fetishes once in a while. But the community should give Neelix a final chance before they TBAN him. He'd already stopped his behavior when this was proposed. (Also, if you are going to ban him from creating redirects, also ban him from moving pages, since that itself automatically creates redirects. Also, ban him from merging pages, because that also forces the creation of redirects. Just sayin'...) epic genius (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Except this particular "rampage" has been going on since at least 2010 -- that's not occasional behavior, that's an integral part of their overall editing pattern. BMK (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. It was mentioned above, but since it may have gotten lost in the size of the discussion, they were caught before, and at that time they said that "While that continues to be my belief, I understand how strongly some editors feel that profanity-related redirects not be created, and the redirects I create in the future will not be profanity-related."  Yet they continued doing it for the past five years, regardless.  I honestly do not feel they are capable of controlling their behavior in this respect. --Aquillion (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - At the very least. The 2010 block, promise and subsequent five year redirect rampage call for firm action. Jus  da  fax   08:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -- there is no lack of other editors to create useful/plausible redirects, and Neelix losing the right to do so will not impede the development of the encyclopedia. In addition, Neelix should be de-sysopped and only allowed to re-apply for the admin bit after a period of showing constructive contributions as a normal editor. -- The Anome (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you consider requesting him to undo the mess his did "draconian" (I'm referring to this amendment)? Initially, that was the very first basic things that people were asking of Neelix: to start undoing the mess. Why should other people be taxed with the pretty monumental job? Neelix showed he can do the monumental job by doing it in the first place, now he can undo it too. LjL (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Draconian, and more to the point, futile, as I can't see that it's likely he would ever finish, and we have no power to force him to do so, and once de-sysopped, Neelix would in any case be unable to help. Neelix should be (a) de-sysopped, and (b) topic-banned from making redirects, but seems on balance to be a useful contributor otherwise. We can do the cleanup with automated tools. The aim of these processes should be to improve the encyclopedia, not to punish. -- The Anome (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's get this straight: what's emerging over time (though "nobody noticed" for years) is that the bogus redirect-making goes back to before 2010, when he was blocked for it; then, more recently, he "retired" because some of his other misbehaviors (including misuse of admin tools and arbitrary WP:INVOLVED blocking of users) surfaced to the press, but in reality, what he did was move to Commons and continue the bogus redirect-making there; then he came back to Wikipedia, and here we are. He should be indefinitely blocked. If he doesn't want to be blocked, the least he could do is undo the mess he created: it's not about punishing, it's about not burdening editors who weren't the ones causing any of this. LjL (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My comments are purely pragmatic, and should not be taken as a defence of Neelix's actions; in fact, they're quite the reverse. If you think Neelix can do it, you might be right. But cleaning up and de-sysopping are mutually exclusive, and so far Neelix seems to have deleted a couple of hundred redirects, then stopped. I would prefer the de-sysopping option at the moment, with due process, in the knowledge that an immediate block will follow if any further problematic edits occur. -- The Anome (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I'm sorry, but at RfD I've just seen too many bad redirects by Neelix, and this crop is just especially egregious. I'm not opposed to a very small daily limit, like one or two. No doubt some of his redirects have been helpful, but to borrow RfA language, I simply don't think they're a net positive. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support complete ban on redirects. This is the very minimum that needs to be done. The 2010 block proves that he knew it was wrong, though he must have known it before that with all the experience he had. This wasn't an innocent mistake. Kelly  hi! 19:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Neelix provided a valid reason for his creation of redirects. Whether or not we agree or disagree with his reasoning (I happen to agree), it was clearly done in GF. Further, he's already volunteered to stop making redirects so imposing a block simply becomes punitive. This reads like a kneecapping effort. LavaBaron (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – I don't have too much trouble assuming good faith for Neelix—I guess they did genuinely believe what they were doing was going to benefit the encyclopedia. However, it is important to remember that good faith contributions can still run contrary to the goals of producing an encyclopedia, and good faith actions can still be sanctioned if they are disruptive. The evidence shows that Neelix has exhibited a surprising lapse in judgement extending back several years with regards to creating redirects; as a result, a restriction against creating redirects makes sense. If there are a few incidental redirects that need to be created in the course of positive article development, the restriction should not count against legitimate requests at Articles for creation/Redirects. Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I've never had a problem with Neelix: in fact, I enjoyed interacted with him here and at the Commons as a committed, passionate Canadian Wikipedian. I wasn't aware of this massive redirect history, at all. I must say some of the comments above appear positively Victorian -- OMG, another redirect about breasts! -- and I don't particularly care if Neelix's bizarrely excessive approach to redirect creation involves body parts at times, or not. But bizarre it is. As I've stated below, I have a real problem with targeting Neelix's articles for deletion if they are notable. But on the redirect side of things, after the 2010 block, he knew what he was doing -- or he should have. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * support limitation to 2 redirects per week. A strict redirect ban might hinder creation of needed redirects, while 2 redirects per week, as well as the additional community awareness should prevent hundreds of bad redirects.--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thing is, creating redirects really isn't that important a task imo. When you think about the staggering amount of time that went into this - he's not using automated tools - you begin to wonder about the poor chap. Is it better if he just goes cold turkey or gets two a week? I really don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An alternative solution is to ban the creation of redirects, but continue to allow legitimate proposals in moderation to stand at Articles for creation/Redirects for those incidental redirects that may be necessary during standard article development. This way, an AFC reviewer can give the OK for each redirect proposed. Mz7 (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed additional topic-ban
I have to admit that in my nine-plus years on Wikipedia, I don't believe I've ever seen a case like this. Neelix is an editor and administrator whose dedication to Wikipedia are obviously substantial. I don't believe I've come across him before, at least not memorably, and so I just took a look at his userpage. He's an experienced editor with a well-developed wiki-philosophy, significant roles in 10 FAs and lots of other articles, an ambassadorship, and does a lot of solid editing.

And yet, we have all the bizarre redirect-creation and other odd behavior that has been described in this thread. The mind, as the saying goes, boggles.

What to do in terms of Neelix's editing rights and particularly his adminship is certainly a valid topic for discussion. But if he does continue editing, in addition to any restriction on redirect-creation, I think we need to seriously consider a topic-ban on the topic of (or perhaps better still, a clear voluntary promise to stay away from the topic of) human breasts or perhaps more generally parts of the human body. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, because this is a sensitive topic for some users, however I don't think Neelix shows a particular obsession with this topic, only that he happens to have created more of these redirects recently and that is what got him noticed. If you go back past about August, the mass-creation of redirects follows other topic lines just as much. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I defer to your analysis of the longer-term trend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment from reporting IP: The concern has been raised about how this would play in the press, which suggests a degree of worldliness here. Is anyone aware of how not blocking and de-sysopping will look to the outside? In this case, the editor's future is not your primary concern; it's Wikipedia and, alas, its image. 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but we can't go and block people to make us look better. This kind of creation of redirects, that's not going to happen again. I'm concerned with the lack of judgment, and I like my admins with more than a little judgment. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about making us look better. It's standard action in a functional workplace environment--a lot of this was offensive in several ways. That a long term error in administrative oversight was made ought to be discussed, but I'm seeing a double standard that's unacceptable--that's becoming the story. To openly admit here, as some have done, that a non-administrative account would be blocked without hesitation seals it. Let the press hang--equivocating looks bad to me. Dr, you know I've been editing here for a decade. At this point I'm far more concerned with the deliberation as an avoidance of what's necessary, than with the offending account's actions. 2601:188:0:ABE6:FC48:1604:D3F5:EB14 (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "that a non-administrative account would be blocked without hesitation" Still not buying it (well, yes, if you came to a trigger-happy admin initially). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * [ec with NeilN, with whom I agree.] I'm not cutting him any slack for being an admin (quite the opposite, in a way), and I don't agree with some of the editors in this discussion. One factor, as NYB pointed out, is that Neelix has been here for quite some time and has done much without getting into too much trouble. It's the "vested contributor" thing, if you will. And we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot, at least in the long run, if we block an editor for past behavior that I think will not be repeated--if only because if it will, he'll be blocked on the spot. I dig where you're coming from, believe me, and I can't thank you enough for getting this ball rolling (this thread is a mighty return on your investment!), but I firmly believe in the "not punitive" part of our blocking policy. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a workplace. I never like that comparison; the baseline motivations and incentives are completely different, making the "what would the HR Department do?" question largely irrelevant. That said, if there were a topic ban, this is the topic to focus on. I don't really think it's useful to do things like redirect ceasingness to cease and desist, and the page views agree with me, but it's harmless enough. Concentrate any attempted remedies on the actual problem, which is the creation of links that are immature and often somewhere between insensitive and offensive. Since he's not actively doing that at the moment, I don't see a need for an Official Memo about it before we hear from Neelix about how he plans to fix the problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose requiring Neelix to be required to use WP:AFC/R for any future redirect creations at the minimum. Steel1943  (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic ban on 'breasts' - I don't think that this is necessary. Sure, this incident involves human breasts in that many redirects were created regarding them, but does Neelix have any other issues, sanctions, warnings, blocks, or a long-term history of issues specifically regarding "breasts or breast-related pages"? I think that the answer is no - he doesn't. This issue appears to stem from a long-term history of issues with inappropriate redirects, not "breast-related" articles. I honestly think that he ran into this topic area, saw that there were many different ways to refer to human breasts, and (for some crazy reason - haha) thought that creating a gigantuous and crazy amount of redirects would.... I don't know, help? :-) Smiling faces aside, I think that this topic ban is a little too much. Am I wrong, or am I crazy and missed something? Please let me know.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I clarified my vote statement to remove some ambiguity and clear up any possible confusion.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're wrong. Glad I could help you there!
 * Neelix has been creating these pages for years. If you don't think it's part of an obvious history of violations you should probably read the bit of the thread discussing his block for this kind of en-masse, inappropriate page creation in 2010. The actual trivialising, disturbing and frankly creepy redirects started in at least 2013 and have continued ever since. Smiling faces asides, if you don't see a problem with his behaviour meriting keeping him away from this area, you haven't read his creation log or the discussion on this page. Ironholds (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ironholds - I was referring to the topic ban on 'breasts', not the topic ban on creating redirects, which I supported above, as well as added a comment regarding this incident's escalation to ArbCom. I think that the ambiguity of this vote is what (might have?) caused your (possible) confusion. Also, yes... I did read the discussion and do my due research. Ya jerk (just kidding) ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   04:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're opposing a topic ban on breasts because the user hasn't got a history of misbehaving, even though they've been consistently doing this since at least 2013-14 and evidently at no point went "wait, maybe this is an incredibly weird, disturbing and pointless way to be spending my spare time"? Because that sounds like a history to me. You know, multiple years of consistently doing something. Ironholds (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, now I'm confused. Are you talking about his history with creating redirects? Or his history of making contributions to "breast-related" articles or topics? I just want to verify that we're on the same page so that we can discuss using accurate responses. You obviously disagree with my vote; I am absolutely 100% open to talk about it - if anything, I'll realize that I'm wrong, apologize for being a complete idiot, change my vote, be shamed as a belligerent fool by the community, and forced to go into hiding in order to stop the pain. I just want to make sure that our statements don't confuse one another, and that I reach the right decision that is beneficial to the project.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The latter. Ironholds (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 *  Oppose Support  'breasts' topic ban and anything to do with human anatomy, physiology, clothing or nudity broadly construed. I think this was the result of general cluelessness rather a disruptive fetish.  J bh  Talk  03:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Changed to support after the 'Commons' material was brought up below. Whether they are problematic or not, to me it speaks to the intent and mindset that resulted in the problem here.  J bh  Talk  15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to be amusing, User:Jbhunley? Surely. AusLondonder (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the massive number of weird redirects he has been doing for years and, as far as I know, no other strangeness cf editing articles, surrounding 'breasts'. I do not think this topic ban on 'breasts' accomplishes anything meaningful. I doubt he will do anything with 'breasts' or their synonyms/slang again. What I worry about is the next puerile topic he goes redirect happy on. There are certain, call them mindsets, that do not understand the connotation - or the social implication - of words or how their use might affect others. People with this 'mindset' tend to only look at the denotation, the dictionary definition, of words. My AGF in this situation is that something like that is in play ie "general cluelessness". Any other explanation also makes this sanction useless as well because in that case he should be indeffed . I hope the general prohibition on redirects I proposed above addresses the matter going forward.  J bh  Talk  04:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Struck material per my support !vote.  J bh  Talk  15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I've deleted over 300 of them (manually...) tonight, and there's hundreds more, starting on 4 September with Tittyfucks. As far as I can tell. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up stuff from September 2015, where the breast-related redirects were. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC) I deleted around 2200 (mostly breast-related) redirects that he added in September. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reviewed both sets of deletions; looks good. — Earwig   talk  06:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have restored tittyfucks and titty-fucks, at least. Like it or not, the (vulgar) common name for mammary intercourse is "tittyfuck", and each of these variations is a well-attested plural/first person singular form. bd2412  T 13:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are potentially good restores, because Google searching on those terms is not a productive way to access information on the topic, because there's so many porn sites. However, when I type "titty" in the Wikipedia search box I am offered "titty fucking" as the second selection, so I think there's not much point. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you be opposed to listing those at WP:RFD? Perhaps as a test case. But also if we're saying that some vulgar redirects are ok based on the results of Google searches, then aren't we really saying that all of these redirects are ok? I utterly, strongly disagree with that rationale, but that does seem to be the point that Neelix was trying to make way up above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, when you're talking about mammary intercourse, which is a sex act, of course you're going to find vulgar terms synonymous with it. I completely agree, however, with the premise given above that "titty" and "booby" are unlikely to be used in combination with medical conditions. There is a principled distinction to be made, and frankly I think that the existence of real-world examples (i.e. Google hits) can be instructive. I would add that searching for terms in the search box is only one of many ways people navigate Wikipedia. I'm not going to think about how people might reach this (frankly unintuitively) named article through such searches, but these redirects do represent terms in use in the real world. bd2412  T 15:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not practical to assess each of 80,000 redirects on a case by case basis. I deleted (with a few exceptions for potentially viable search terms) the breast-related ones because they are offensive, and combined slang terminology with medical terminology in a way that real people are unlikely to use as a search term. For example, titty surgeon is not an occupation. The page got three views on the day it was created, and none since. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the deletion of redirects combining vulgar terms with medical terms. bd2412  T 16:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Topic ban should extend to: Prostitution, sex work, and anything related to human sexuality, broadly construed. See this article on Neelix's agenda: . He's far from the admirable editor you make him out to be. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I remember that WPO exposé. Biographies too. The debate here shouldn't be over desysop, it should be over whether to block the account entirely. Amazing that these redirects flew under the radar for so long. How do we prevent others from potentially doing the same in the future? We should have had edit filters catching stuff of this magnitude. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Do admin. edits go through the edit filters? (my impression is that it depends on the individual filter) — Ched : ?  11:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, Autopatrolled explains it: The autopatrolled (formerly autoreviewer) user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers. Over 4,000 accounts, including all admins, have this right. Perhaps certain filters should be in place that all edits, including those of admins, must pass. The type that would only be triggered under extreme conditions. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. A topic ban from anything even vaguely sex-related seems appropriate at the moment. -- The Anome (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per above. Seems to be an unhealthy fixation of the type that embarrasses the whole project. Kelly  hi! 17:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose When an argument for blocking or banning someone is "if we don't, how will this play in the media?" I will always register Oppose. LavaBaron (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support this part of the proposed topic ban, as there's similarity to the edits that led to the 2010 block; the other redirects were similar to those created just before the successful Requests for adminship/Neelix. Peter James (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion
Notifying here that I have posted a motion proposing that Neelix be desysoped. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads-up :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's very appropriate. BMK (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Dismissing a block as punitive is faulty logic
A block in this case is in no way punitive. If an individual lacks the common sense to understand that behavior such as this is inappropriate on so many levels, then we have an obvious CIR case here. The lists of terms he has used is frankly disturbing and raises questions about not just competence, but mental health. I am not a doctor, but if a naked man knocked on my door on Halloween and said, "Trick or Treat for UNICEF", I don't think anyone would expect a degree as a prerequisite for saying "That fella is not right." C'mon, here, ladies and gentlemen. There isn't anything to debate. Let the arbs take his mop, and then show him the door and lock it quick. I don't care to be associated with this kind of behavior. I am having a problem understanding why this is complicated. John from Idegon (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that CIR is seriously in question here, as is the future of his behavior, and on that grounds I would support a block. Softlavender (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For what its worth, I think a block is justified here, if only because of the childish, sexist, and offensive nature of many of the redirects. Neelix can explain themselves in an unblock request if necessary.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Thank you for opening this sub-heading, it's one of the points I wished to make above. A few hours after bringing this to Drmies's attention and starting this report, I checked out in exasperation that this rationale didn't seem abundantly clear to more administrators. It really surprised me to return from dinner last night and learn that the account belonged to an administrator, to read of the scale of the redirect history, and observe a hesitancy in blocking. One may debate the editor's intent or frame of mind, but doing so is unnecessary--he may be no more, nor less, tightly wound than are you or I. But what can be determined quickly is the content and quality of these edits, the ramifications of those edits to the project, and the editor's competence. 2601:188:0:ABE6:8C40:C684:713F:6378 (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I too support a block. For both the editor's own good and the best interests of the encyclopedia. The redirects and hatnotes are bad enough, but the issues with this editor extend beyond just those. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Per this thread. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been lambasted on this board before for commenting on a user's state of mental health. Please be careful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanted to note somewhere in this discussion that today Neelix is actively deleting some old redirects and that's a positive sign. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, he did about 150 or so, and they weren't even the most egregious ones. When you've made 80,000, cleaning up 150 is not much of a contribution.  I really expect to see Neelix making 'no edits of any kind which aren't connected with cleaning up his mess. BMK (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. At the moment, I can't see any evidence that Neelix is in the process of, or likely to, clean up 80,000 redirects, nor will he be able to do so with the admin bit removed, which I now see as inevitable. This is a job for the community, with the aid or automated tools. I would imagine that almost all of the 80,000 redirects can be deleted, with a little bit of database filtering to find the perhaps (at a guess) 1,000 or so that might be useful, which can then be reviewed by hand. (By the way, note that some vulgar terms are valid for redirects, for example common vulgar names for sex acts. But these are few and far between.) -- The Anome (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Community Admonishment
I propose a community admonishment for Neelix with respect to the creation of unneeded, and in some cases offensive, redirects. Neelix should only create redirects that strictly comply with WP:REDIRECT, and not to create any unless their validity is absolutely certain. On the understanding that if this is not followed, a community ban from all redirect creation, other than those from page moves, may entail. I feel this is the appropriate response, given that he has responded "I have stopped. I have promised to stop. I would be glad to delete whatever the community wants me to delete." and "I have not been using any automated processes or bots. I am simply a fast typist. I apologize again for my creation of these redirects. I promise not to do so again. I do not believe any of my non-redirect-related edits have been offensive. Please let me know if you would like any further comment from me." and "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=689256259 I apologize for creating unusual redirects. When creating them, I did not think the community in general would be against them. Again, I am very sorry.]" Meaning that any block, bans or desysops would likely be punitive rather than preventative.


 * Support as proposer. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 16:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -rayukk &#124; talk 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support As editor is now patently aware of community disapproval and that any further creation of these types of redirects would be considered disruptive. Wisdom89 ♦talk 16:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, as as a complete resolution of this matter. bd2412  T 16:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Other issues such as admin tool misuse and possible POV pushing have come to light as well. See the discussion at [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community_comments_.28Neelix_desysoped.29 Arbitration/Requests/Motions]. J bh  Talk  16:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, with bd2412. Some of Neelix's redirects have started coming in at WP:RFD. I'd appreciate the community working together at RFD to come to a consensus on which redirects are helpful and which aren't. Yes, it might "flood" RFD for a time (less so if they are bundled by subject/theme), but this is the correct way to go about it. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Noting that the other "solutions" may be more draconian than useful. Collect (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose procedurally. Enough issues have come to light at this point that a full ArbCom case seems necessary, maybe even likely. I also believe that formal admonishment is somewhat silly. Community admonishment is evident in the 165,000-ish bytes already devoted to this here and at ArbCom (not counting other talk pages), we don't really need to put a stamp on it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The point of it is a formal warning not to repeat this behavior. It's exactly the same reason that ArbCom admonishes editors. If there was a repeat, and this community admonishment was passed, then a ban from redirect creation would feel a lot more justified. A ban from redirect creation would feel less justified, as no community warning, to my knowledge, has been given. See above for arguments against a community ban at this time. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose on first principles. Community admonishment is a useless think to propose or vote on.  It doesn't actually enact or change any permissions or rights, and doesn't remove any tools, block, protect, or impose any bans or restrictions on the user's editing.  The admonishment is implicit in the participation in the thread, and such a vote is meaningless.  It's readily apparent there is a problem, there does not need to be a formal process confirming that.  Proposals for action should cause a substantive change in something.  Formal admonishment is worse than useless.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if ban proposals do not achieve consensus and are not enacted.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a topic ban will formalise his promise not to do it again, and this whole ANI thread is admonishment enough. Neelix is a good editor, we don't want to drive him away by putting him in the stocks and pelting him with rotten fruit. He's done wrong, we'll introduce a topic ban (hopefully temporarily), we can all move on. GiantSnowman 18:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Good idea. There is way too much formalizing going on in Wikipedia.  A formal topic ban is appropriate if admonishment fails, which I doubt that it will. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for whatever this is worth (not much). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The truth is if this was a non-admin, they would have been indef'd a long time ago.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure I'm understanding your point. The proposal at hand is that the only procedure here be an admonishment, and nothing further -- no action, no topic/redirect ban, no de-sysop, no block, etc. Is that non-action what you are supporting? (I'm asking because the wording of your support is a bit confusing and implies sanctions are warranted.) Softlavender (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Ivanvector. I reject the "if they were an admin/a non-admin ..." arguments as classist and plain illogical. Alakzi (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He's been abusing his admin privileges for years, agreed not to mass-create more vulgar redirects after being blocked for it in 2010, and yet has created 80,000 more of them, in addition to boneheaded articles like Pantlessness complete with revealing nude female image. This actually however is just the tip of the iceberg on the Neelix case, which very few people seem to have taken the time to look into. He needs an immediate de-sysop and probably an indef. We can't have an out-of-control admin with this level of puerile fixation on sex and vulgarity and this inability to control his impulses despite promises to do so. Softlavender (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a clear case of abuse of the bit and policy as well as his agreement to stop this nonsense when he was blocked for it in 2010.  I agree a desysop is in order because he has abused his position as an admin as well as the community's trust, but I do not agree he should be indeffed.  Sanctions and/or a topic ban after being desysopped with monitoring for 6 months or so is more appropriate than an indef block/ban.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  21:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not enough, we are beyond hand slapping. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of the wording that this would be the only sanction. As I said, an admonishment is necessary, but not sifficient. BMK (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Support, but only because ArbCom seems to need more proof that the community has lost trust in Neelix.  The adminishment is necessary, but not sufficient. BMK (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He was blocked for this exact same thing in the past and said the exact same things you're citing above.  Yes, it was five years ago, but I think that there are clear WP:CIR problems.  Given the sheer tenacity and scale of this behavior, and given that he ignored a previous block (despite promising to stop), I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that he will resume this behavior the moment he thinks he can get away with it (or the moment whatever urge makes him doing it hits him again.)  And given how long it took to notice these among his huge number of other automated-looking edits, I'm not at all confident that the community would spot it within a reasonable timeframe if he resumed this behavior a few months from now.  A block in extreme circumstances like these would be preventive, not punitive, and I feel it's silly to suggest that just "he promised to stop (again) and this time he really means it" could change that. --Aquillion (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Tara Teng. The creepy behaviour surrounding her is enough for a block. AusLondonder (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That article is the electronic equivalent of a collage of celebrity pictures taped to a bedroom wall. Kelly  hi! 03:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This should give a formal statement of what is expected. Based on Neelix's response we can assume that it will be listened too.  Blocks are not needed but this will express what the community wants to say on the matter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The redirects are strange and inappropriate. Neelix should have known better, but maybe he didn't. He has apologized and isn't doing it anymore, so that should be sufficient for us. He is admonished and we all move on. There is no need for punishment and we shouldn't be trying to run him off the project. Everyking (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Begin the cleanup
Anomie has created a list of redirects created by and only edited by user Neelix. I modified it so they are numbered (50,072 of them!) to make it easy to reference them if needed. So, whenever cleanup starts, this is the place to begin. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Goodness... the page hardly loads. Well, I'll get started. Also, do we want to create other batches for his dab creations and other potentially problematic things? — Earwig   talk  00:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the page takes a while to load, even on a blazing fast fiber optic connection. I wonder if it might be good to add section breaks every 2500 entries or something? As for the others, we can get to those as we get to them. This list ought to make it easier to use WP:RfD to get rid of any useless ones. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reformatted Anomie's list on Labs; should hopefully be easier to load if people are having trouble: earwig-dev/neelix/all.html. More to come. — Earwig   talk  02:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we split this into subpages? Much easier to work with. bd2412  T 02:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, working on that. Trying to do it smartly rather than just a bunch of arbitrary cuts. By the way, this one seems to be chronological. — Earwig   talk  02:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See earwig-dev/neelix/chronological.html for now. Still more to come. — Earwig   talk  03:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously as a non-admin, there's nothing much I can do to help, except to say "thank you" for undertaking this huge task. BMK (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just can't figure out where this guy is coming from. I mean Climactic, Climactical, Climactically, Climaxing, Climaxed, Climaxes, Climaxer, Climaxers, Climaxingly, Climaxedly, Klimax?!? BMK (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , YES, there's a lot you can do as a non-admin! Find redirects of questionable utility and nominate them at WP:RFD. We haven't gotten consensus here to delete all of them (and I doubt that'd happen, there's too many useful ones), so it's going to have to be done by WP:RFD. We need to start somewhere so find a topic/theme, and get nominating!! -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Things like the above aside, the vast majority of the redirects created by this editor are perfectly fine. bd2412  T 03:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are 80,000 of them, bd2412. Have you gone through all 80,000? Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have gone through several thousand of them. Some of them are unconventional, but well within policies for the creation of redirects. For example, Frozen Face and Miss Ice Glacier are nicknames referenced in the subject's article. Many of them are useful, such as Oliver Burgess Meredith, Bradford Claude Dourif, and Sarah Kate Silverman (we routinely redirect full names to shorter common names). Some seem to be overly specific, such as Caitie, Cathee, Kaytie, and Kayte pointing to specific articles when they are arguably potentially ambiguous, but none of these should be red links. Mass deletion will do more harm than good. bd2412  T 04:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there's no consensus to delete first and ask questions later, and RfD would be overloaded if we dealt with this situation one by one. You can't deal with 80,000 candidates like it was a couple of hundred. BMK (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We better get started then. RFD can handle it, trust me. I'm a regular there. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll consider helping out by nominating at RfD, but first you've got to tell me: How may redirects RfD handled in total in the past 12 months. BMK (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We've had a single nomination of 14,000 redirects before. It's all about bundling smartly and remember that discussions with no objections default to delete. That way you can nominate a lot at the same time, and the only real burden is on the closing admin. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated earwig-dev/neelix/chronological.html a bit. Includes redirect targets now; that was the main thing. Also shows redirects that have been deleted since Anomie built the list (not updated live). — Earwig   talk  04:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at a few thousand now, and I don't have a problem with many of them. I think we've done a pretty decent job taking care of the offensive ones (see my block log and Iridescent's). I have no doubt many of these will start showing up at RfD and that's fine; prompted by RfD discussions I've deleted a couple of obviously unlikely permutations. One of the problems with RfD is the paperwork: there's a neat little button now that goes directly to "delete", but closing them is another matter. I noticed that closed one for me--thanks, I just don't know how to do that easily. So,, the sheer volume as well as the...eh...not-so-easiness of closing those discussions probably means this is going to take some time. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thus the point of my asking how many redirects RfD normally handles. There's also the question of "double handling" (stagehands hate doublehandling).  If an admin examines the list and sees an obvious problem redirect, they can simply delete it.  On the other hand, if I see one, not only do I have to nominate it at RfD, where it's subject to discussion, but then an admin has to delete it anyway - so the entire process takes at least twice as long and potentially more.  I don't see that as a particularly efficient way of dealing with the problem, rather than having an organized task force of admins attack the list. BMK (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Drmies, Tavix, I'm still not convinced leaving it to RFD is the way to go. Just cleaning up the redirects to this one tiny sub-stub would create more discussions at RFA than it usually handles in a week; plus, even if only 1% of the 50,000 are deemed potentially problematic, that will mean Neelix will wake one morning to find 500 RFD notifications on his talkpage. &#8209; iridescent 09:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I didn't mean to suggest that RfD is the best way to go. BMK, you can always ask an admin to delete some list of them, I suppose. But it would be so much easier if in a list like this one I could select what I wanted deleted and then delete them with one click and one edit summary. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Only one discussion per group like that should be necessary. RfD is no stranger to mass nominations. — Earwig   talk  10:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @iridescent, I don't see any redirects in this list of 94 that would require deleting. Overkill? Probably, but "redirects are cheap" has long been a meme here. MLauba (Talk) 11:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, nothing's free: server space costs electrons costs rainforest and low-lying countries. And why all the permutations with words following "Domotor-Kolompar"? If you type in those two words the rest (of the article title) follows automatically; are we making those terms for cutting and pasting purposes? If you paste in "Domotor-Kolompar criminal family" and there were no redirect, you'd go to the "regular text" search which tells you that the topic is already covered in Domotor-Kolompar criminal organization. I mean, there's something of a purpose to those redirects, but it's oh so minimal, and "Domotor-Kolompar criminal family" had only seven visits in the last 90 days. Surely that's not what the dinosaurs died for. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * RFD will work if you do it right: You just have to be smart about WP:BUNDLE. Divide his redirects first into "good" vs. "bad" (yeah, I know that's subjective, but there are some that are obviously not good). Then, take the "bad" ones and categorize them by a certain theme. I'm going to begin to do so once this dies down, and I encourage others to do the same. The key is that discussions on RFD with no other discussion default to "delete," so no one else has to chime in on something unless there's an objection. That way, the only burden lies with the deleting admin (which would be the case anyway). -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * RFD can do mass nominations very efficiently, here's a thread dealing with 357 redirects simultaneously, the mechanism would be similar for a few thousand. The rationale for either keeping or deleting many of these redirects is likely to be the same, so it shouldn't be a big deal to nominate all of them at the same time. We could even copy the list to a subpage of the RfD log and refer to it, rather than listing each and every redirect on the log page, or a bot could do it, or I don't know. It's do-able, is my point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , would it be possible to take the raw output and produce a list of targets with numbers of redirects for each? The ones that have most redirects might be the ones with the most superfluous (or worse) redirects, it might be easier to produce RfD bundles by target, and the sheer size of the list might be a little more manageable - I'm guessing about a tenth or less of the full size. NebY (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'll have that in a bit. — Earwig   talk  21:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See earwig-dev/neelix/targets.html. 399 redirects to insulated glazing. Oh dear. — Earwig   talk  03:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * neat! and yes, oh dear. Some of those 399 actually make finding information on the internet harder. The first 10 Google results for sextuple glaze contain seven "dictionary" entries largely scraped from these redirects, two anagram sites and at #5 one link to a web page that actually is about multiple-glazing. Now I'm wondering if others of his stranger creations are drowning out sparse genuine search results far from Wikipedia, and whether those online dictionaries will self-repair if the redirects are deleted. NebY (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A simpler solution to 's point could be to create User:Beyond My Ken/Redirects to be deleted and list only the titles from the 50k odd ones you think are delete worthy and alert who can check and perform a batch-delete on that page using Twinkle. I think the maximum pages that can be handled like this is 500 or something (though I doubt any individual is going to look through more than that at a time), but I could be mistaken on that. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Spiffsterix, if you'll tell me how to do a "batch delete". It'd be great for my edit count. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to everyone for these suggestions, which I will probably follow at some point. Right now, to be absolutely honest, I am so utterly dispirited by the way ArbCom is handling this issue, one of the most obvious loss-of-trust desysopping issues I've seen in my 10 years here, that all I want to do is forget that I ever heard of Neelix. That will pass, although my faith in ArbCom may not return for a long time, and when it does I'll see where we stand and join in, but at the moment I'm more inclined to want to nuke every edit Neelix ever made -- not just the redirects -- and indef him for life then I am to engage in a lot of hard slogging grunt-work to undo his damage. BMK (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just scanned several thousand of his redirects (I read very fast). I prod the very worst, but there are blocks of redirects with slight variations in capitalization, dashes etc that are totally useless because search finds them anyway. I noticed he has a box on his user page that says he is in the top 250 Wikipedia editors - maybe that is the motivation? Shooting for the top 10?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 11:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you're right, as Neelix went to the press to highlight his edit count and his userpage is festooned with edit count userboxes. Kelly  hi! 11:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is nuts. We are encouraged to flag these junk redirects, so I flag some, and User:Officialjjones and User:GB fan decline them speedy deletes as to old to delete. So off to discuss them.  Maybe the Admins don't really want help here.  Legacypac (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following this thread so I have no idea what it is about and am not going to go through it. When I see a redirects that were created in 2007-2008 tagged for speedy deletion under R3, I decline them as they don't fall under the Recent provision of R3.  -- GB fan 13:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Double standard and partiality shown towards new editors and IP editors and administrators are given unfair advantage?
If some kid comes and create an auto-biography three times, they are indefinitely blocked. If a new user creates useless pages, they are indefinitely blocked. The IP who started this has made this comment in his talk page and i very much agree with him. An editor with six month old account gets friends, so an administrator will get so many supporters. Some people are coming with a conclusion "Nelix has stopped", "he has been warned" and kind words "Desysop is punitive".

Warning is for new users, not for administrators. Neelix won't do it again, is not a valid excuse. Are you people aware that this is about thousands of redirects, not even a few hundred? This is rarest of rare case. Even New users and vandals haven't done anything as such in my knowledge. If some phrase exist in internet, then Neelix is innocent. In the arbcom case, users are coming with ridiculous arguments to save Neelix. Seriously, Wikipedia is not urbandictionary.com. Wikipedia is not a fetish site. Wikipedis is not a random collection of nonsense stuff.

I suggest 1-Desysop, 2-one year block and  3-indefinite topic ban related to Biology, Female fashion, Zoology topics. Administrator was aware what he was doing. Even he doesn't repeat it still action must be taken. If his first block in 2010 was due to similar behaviour, then most likely he will do it again after five years, and at that time 80% of the users aware of this will become inactive or retire.182.66.53.95 (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes we are aware of the number, very well aware as a matter of fact. Blocks still aren't punitive, and the suggestion that Neelix has somehow been protected by friends--well, I think was the first admin to respond to the IP's hunch, and I think it's clear that I am neither a friend nor a protector, even though I do not support a block (yet). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Blocks aren't punitive" and yet dozens of IPs and new accounts get blocked every day for less than 5 instances of vandalism, without necessarily any definitive proof that they'll do it again; Neelix did it before being blocked, did it again after being blocked, retired after being "outed" on the press, but really continued doing it on Commons, then after a while came back here, and did it again. What exactly are we still waiting for? LjL (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We block vandals quickly, sometimes very quickly, based on the presumption that they did something wrong and will keep on doing it until they're made to stop. Many vandals might have stopped anyway the moment computer class in their high school is over, or the moment their mom yanks them away from the keyboard. But we block them because we think that a. they're likely to commit more of it, b. what they do needs to be cleaned up again, taking up resources, and c. what they're adding is wrong and an embarrassment. Those things don't apply here--hence, in my opinion a block would be punitive. If Neelix creates one more offensive/inappropriate redirect they'll be blocked, but they haven't done that. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny, I thought all three applied, based on what I summarized just above. a) Neelix is likely to commit more of it because the past times he said he'd stop, he hasn't; b) thus it'll need to be cleaned up again and with Neelix, contrary to the random school vandal, we're talking thousands of things; c) please tell me you aren't saying that the redirects that have often been mentioned here aren't, in your view, "wrong and embarassing". Please. LjL (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny? I'll see if I have witty response after the RSI has worn off. You know, there are lots of ways in which one can help Wikipedia. Removing (manually) hundreds of offensive redirects is one of the. Barking up the wrong tree on a noticeboard, not so much. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Not just here, at Commons too
At first I was trying to think of an innocuous reason for all these strange redirects - was this just a way of grinding his edit count higher, like a score in a video game? Under his real name, David Mark Purdy (it's at the top of his user page), Neelix has given interviews to the press as one of Wikipedia's "top 50 editors" and highlighted his edit count of 130,000 (were a majority of those silly and puerile redirects?) Was he just wanting attention and accolades and thought a high edit count would do that?

After I saw this thread, I also went to look at his Commons contribs. Apparently back in January, Neelix retired for a couple months after he came to the attention of offline forums, including Wikipediocracy, for the creepy shrinelike nature of Tara Teng and related articles. While he was inactive here, he went to Commons. His contribs there had been previously limited and routine, but in January he began to create hundreds, if not thousands, of odd categories involving nudity. The list is here, just keep scrolling. His first one in this vein was "Blue pasties", soon progressing to "Topless women wearing panties", "Topless women with nipple piercings", "Topless women with closed eyes and opened mouth", "Nude women drinking", "Nude women with pianos", "Men touching nude women's breasts"....it just goes on and on and on continuing up to this month.

There's something very wrong here. Neelix made a small effort to start cleanup and seems to have abandoned the whole thing. I frankly would not be surprised if we have seen the last of him here. But I'm thinking the bit should probably be removed soonest in any case. Kelly hi! 14:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Remind me again why we are against an indefinite block please? Because it would be punitive, was that it? Not because it would stop him from doing utter crap after he was blocked and even come to press attention for it? Do we really want the press to do a better job of vetting not even just editors, but administrators, than we do? LjL (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , are they discussing this on Commons? I can't work their system; have you brought it up over there? I doubt they'd care much, and again, it may be that some of those categories are useful. But that's an awful lot of naked or imitation-naked women someone was looking at, and while a category may be useful, a thousand such categories for women (not for men) suggests we're in the cattle business--that women are such objects who can be categorized by men for their viewing pleasures, like Commons is a porn site (well, to a great extent it is) where you can grab a box of tissues and pick your fetish. I wonder if Commons gets the bad rep we do. Thanks for looking into this and, if you know how to do it and it hasn't been done, please get folks over there to take it up. Sheesh, a sexual obsession--the gift that keeps on giving, thanks to the internet. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've raised it here. I don't know if anything will happen, Commons is very badly staffed for admins and the ones that are active are heavily occupied with copyright violations and other "urgent" stuff. Kelly  hi! 15:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kelly. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Drmies—I wonder if Commons gets the bad rep we do? I take it you've never tried typing "electric toothbrush" into the Commons search box? &#8209; iridescent 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good god. Kelly  hi! 15:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to wash my eyes with soap now, . But on that point there are editors who go searching for cleavage pictures of private people that are accidentally licensed as CC-by-sa on Flickr and go on to upload here and it's quite difficult to get them deleted. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're so innocent, Spiff. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix active again
Neelix is currently active again on Commons, making scores of automated edits and this edit regarding his conduct. He doesn't seem to have returned to help clean up his mess here though. Kelly hi! 17:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow. I've messaged them on their talk pages, both here and there. Let's see if they respond. -- The Anome (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears that Neelix is distressed by these events (see this diff), and I personally have no desire to chase them any further on this matter. They have emailed the Arbcom, and I think we should leave this matter to them now. I don't think there's much point in chasing Neelix. Let's work on tidying things up here. -- The Anome (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "It is very emotionally draining to read through the constant criticisms of me and my editing" Awwww, bless him. As emotionally draining as creating tens of thousands of useless redirects? The last refuge of the damned.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Being distressed is, I dare say, the very least one could expect in his reaction. He has every reason to be, but are we going to fall for the same "trap" as when he "retired"? LjL (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * At least on commons, some very minor progress seems to be being made. I suggest we regard their edits on commons as being separate from the situation here. -- The Anome (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Anome, your faith in human nature inspires me. Unfortunately (and I've been here a few years) in my experience once one of these obsessive-type admins go bad, they never become good again except temporarily. It just results in more rounds of drama and endless work before they are inevitably relieved of the tools and often banned. I'm thinking of folks like, and .  Kelly  hi! 18:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What Neelix does on Commons does not fall under the jurisdiction of AN/I on en.wp. 823510731 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it's relevant as part of his pattern of behavior. Kelly  hi! 20:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly BMK (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed block
I am at this point going to propose an indefinite block for Neelix, despite some previous objections to that. This is on the following grounds:
 * He was blocked in 2010 for making inappropriate redirects; however, he resumed that behavior.
 * He has additionally misused admin tools by, at least, blocking editors when he was involved.
 * He has come to Wikipediocracy's attention as having furthered his own agenda, possibly including the aforementioned misuse of tools.
 * After that event, he ostensibly "retired" from Wikipedia, but in reality simply moved his dubious redirect-creation activity to Wikimedia Commons and turned it into dubious categorization (are things like "topless women with snakes" desirable categories to have?).
 * He came back to Wikipedia, to make this further large batch of unacceptable redirects, including things like (I shall remind) Tumorous boobies, A trip down mammary lane or Run-or-rape games.
 * Once asked to give up his admin privileges and delete his bogus redirects, he did neither thing, except for a proportionally small number of redirects; instead, he went back to Commons to do more automated-looking edits.

This shows that misbehavior and poor judgement is a long-term and ongoing problem, and involves both admin-specific and editor-specific circumstances. Evidence shows he is not furthering Wikipedia's goals, and despite quite laconic "apologies", he isn't showing an understanding of the issues at hand and what he should fix. The fact he "retired" after press attention and then the problems surfaced again shows that he knows how to wait for the spotlight on him to go away, and then start again with troublesome behavior. This is why a block would not be "punitive", but in my opinion, the only way forward. LjL (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The ArbCom [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion:_Neelix_desysoped Motion to de-sysop] has faild because a majority of the Arbs think a full case is required. It would probably be better to take this material to Arbitration/Requests/Case and fill out the 'paperwork' there. Someone, sooner or later, will need to do so. I doubt there is stomach for an indef here considering the number of editors who thought an "admonishment" is all that is needed.  J bh  Talk  18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be careful not to assume that simply because someone supported admonishment, it automatically means they opposed harsher measures. I think there was a bit of confusion on the matter. You can support something in case something else you'd prefer fails, that even has a name in jurisprudence (although I don't remember what the name is). As to "filling out the paperwork", if anyone wants to add anything to my above recounting of the events, I will be happy for them to do so, and then maybe it can be used for the ArbCom case. LjL (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral. I think Neelix will not be returning immediately. The de-sysop process will now slowly work its way through Arbcom, and will resolve itself whichever way, and that's fine. In the meantime, we can block Neelix at any time, indefinitely if necessary, if they re-start this sort of editing or otherwise go against policy. However, if other editors support an indefblock, I won't vote against. -- The Anome (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Neelix is not currently doing anything on en.wp that needs to be prevented, and has agreed to stop his problematic redirects. Should he restart, then a block would be preventative and justified, but a block now would just look vindictive. 823510731 (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What if he restarts, then agrees to stop again? Would blocking be vindictive again? Because that's exactly what happened this time. It's not the first offence, that's pretty clear by now. For how long will the start-and-(promise-to)-stop game will be played? At this point, I actually do hope the media pick up on this story and shame "us" for not having taken any actual action yet. LjL (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, blocking would then be preventive, not punitive. Neelix is on a final warning now. -- The Anome (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. One more inappropriate redirect means a block. What is called for now is calm heads, not jerking knees. 823510731 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You guys are too funny! When do tickets for your stand-up tour go on sale?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 *   -- The Anome (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hehe, free backstage passes are in the post :-) 823510731 (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One more, or 80000 more in the span of 5 years, like last time he was warned by means of being blocked? I really hope the people who now oppose blocking will keep his future behavior under tight scrutiny. LjL (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we're in a bit of a holding pattern because the ArbCom motion has neither passed nor failed at this point. If it fails I have no doubt someone will draft a case request (I'm willing to help). Kelly  hi! 20:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "One more, or 80000 more?" is a perfectly reasonable question, and the answer should one. If an agreement made years ago was not followed up, then the fault is surely distributed and if the subject got no adverse reactions for so long then it is surely not unreasonable for them to think what they were doing was acceptable. The onus was on the editor to not create inappropriate redirects, but it was surely also on the rest of the community to review those that were made and offer some feedback? And if no criticism was forthcoming in five years, it's surely reasonable for the sanctioned editor to think things are acceptable, isn't it? What it is important to remember here is that what we are looking at is a lapse of judgment rather than any deliberate attempt to cause problems, and no matter how big a lapse it is (and I think it's pretty big), a community simply cannot succeed if it does not make allowances for the blindly obvious fact that there are many different mindsets that contribute to that society. To my relatively small mind, Wikipedia's biggest challenge is to work out a way to assess other people's potential contributions without judging them by our own individually relatively small mindsets. Or in other words, to avoid turning things into management by outraged mob (because that really is what I'm seeing here). 823510731 (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral, my feelings are exactly those of The Anome above. Kelly  hi! 19:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - In the absence of any meaningful action from ArbCom, and the lack of a community-based desysopping procedure, this is all that the community can do to deal with this person. I understand the "preventative versus punitive" argument, and I do not find it convincing in this context.  A person who has been doing a certain behavior for many, many years will sooner or later return to doing it, or some variation on it, and an indef block will prevent that from happening.I doubt that this proposal will succeed, but in the wake of the revelation of problems on Commons as well, and of ArbCom playing totally unnecessary procedural games, I, as a member of the Wikipedia community, feel that this must be done, despite the opinions of editors I respect highly who oppose it. BMK (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per BMK. This is a no-brainer.  The ambivalence of other editors on this issue could be a greater problem than Neelix's disruption. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your dragging said ambivalent...enablers? off to ArbCom. Good luck with it. Aren't you the master of the little sneer, coming by a day or two afterward to see what you can piss on. I see this is exactly your first contribution to the case; I'm sorry if me and some other ambivalent editors, the ones who in your opinion are the real problem, have already done the real work for you. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per BMK - As I said above I'm all for giving second chances but an admin causing disruption of this magnitude deserves indef blocking, Had this been a normal editor or even a troll/vandal they'd be blocked in a blink of an eye so I don't see why he shouldn't be just because he is <S>(or atleast was)</S> an admin!, In a month or so I honestly feel he'll restart the redirects I really do, I don't believe blocking here is punitive either. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And if he does, block him then! 823510731 (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Beyond My Ken. It seems clear that this person has lost the confidence of the community and should no longer be an administrator. An indefinite block is the surest way to prevent the obsessive and clearly inappropriate redirect creating activity. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What has an indef block got to do with loss of confidence as an admin? Those seem to me to be two different things, surely? 823510731 (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that these are two highly related things and not at all discrete, . Simply desysopping him, (which I support), does not stop him from mass creating inappropriate redirects. I see him as a net negative and believe that it is best for the encyclopedia if he is blocked. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks for the reply. I understand your point. 823510731 (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per BMK. Since the behavior has occurred more than once a block would prevent it happening again. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Arbcom's failure to act makes this necessary.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you requested an ArbCom case? 823510731 (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and I can probably include nine editors that support community admonishment above. I mean seriously, this thread is starting to resemble a lynch-mob. (a) Blocks are meant to be preventative not punitive. He has apologised profusely, and this is just not necessary. (b) Having looked at some of the redirects he's created, a great many have logic to them. People type in inaccurate search terms, and guess what this will help them find the relevant article. I would like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not censored, and maybe some people really are going to refer to breasts as titties etc. (c) The presence of these redirects are not greatly disruptive. They are just waiting for someone to type something inaccurate in the search bar. It's not like he's vandalized articles or anything. This whole thread has been blown out of proportion to a great extent. Come to your senses. <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;"> --Jules (Mrjulesd)</b> 22:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support one-year block for semi-automated editing which was disruptive in a major way. They need some time to get a life outside of Wikipedia, and refresh their approach to life and encyclopedia editing. There is evidence that such a remedy can be successful, per a former administrator who ranks in the highest tier by edit-count, and who has returned to editing in a most positive way. Now you want to talk "vindictive", after over three years the Arbitration Committee is still standing in the way of allowing even any limited form of automated editing, "broadly construed" by this generally well-respected high-profile editor. Now. that's vindictive. That's punitive. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What semi-automated editing did Neelix do? Serious question, as I've seen no evidence of such. And if there was any, was it the "semi automated" nature that was the problem? 823510731 (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One year for now. There is still a chance that that user may come back as productive user. But not before a long break.--Müdigkeit (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite". It just means that the length of the block isn't pre-defined. He could be unblocked at any time for various reasons (including an unblock request that convinced the reviewing admin that he had really understood the issues that led to the block). LjL (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - given the obsessive editing behavior (continuing even today at Commons while this discussion was going on), I'm 100% certain there are going to be socks. Should be easy to spot though - just make Tara Teng moderately less fanboyish and he will show up to protect The Precious. Kelly  hi! 00:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I originally thought GW's motion to desysop might be the right way to go, given the workload at Arbcom and the possibility it would be a straightforward vote. However in the time following the initial motion, a number of facts have come to light, including evidence which might mean admin tools were abused, so I think the current expectation that the motion will fail and a full case will ensue is the right way to go. Given a full case, evidence will be provided, some of which will relate to how Neelix has contributed to cleaning up the problem. If he is blocked, he will be able to say "I was perfectly willing to help but because I was blocked I could not". For that reason alone, I am opposed to a block, so that he has the physical capability of contributing to the cleanup, and failure to do so will be relevant. Should a single new redirect be created, I would support a block.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  02:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is more or less my thinking too. Kelly  hi! 02:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Not Colosseum. We should wait for Neelix to comment before deciding anything. Given many of these redirects are obviously offensive why are so many folks posting links to them here? Making them red -- and therefore make stand out really well -- does not make en-wiki a better place. See WP:Widget. NE Ent 02:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per BMK. Should be blocked at least a year. A serious breach of community trust calls for protective measures. I am sorry to say I !voted for this character for admin, so my taking the time to correct this situation seems especially appropriate. Opposers are unconvincing. Jus  da  fax   03:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - What? Why? What edits has Neelix made since this ANI began and after he promised to stop that warrants the proper use of a block?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * None this time, but up to about 50000 after last time he was blocked for a similar reason and he likewise promised to stop. How many more times shall we play this game? LjL (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per BMK.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There is now a cast request open at RFAR.  J bh  Talk  10:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per punitive. epic genius (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Blocks are preventive, not punitive, so block if Neelix begins creating inappropriate redirects again. With regard to other problems, these will likely be examined by the Arbitration Committee, and I don't think we should prejudice that by preventing Neelix's participation unless he begins disruptive activity again. BethNaught (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Let's give the editor some time to demonstrate his productive contribution before lowering a hammer that can't easily be lifted. bd2412  T 01:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I stumbled upon this debacle rather late and am still looking over all the details, but my initial reading of the situation indicates that a block would be a slight overreaction and wouldn't have any net positive effect for the encyclopedia at this time. I don't see evidence of currently active disruption that needs to be prevented immediately. Lesser editing restrictions should be considered first for the long-term before going to the last-resort remedy. Mz7 (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and also appose any unilateral blocks threatened by at least one admin here. Since there is a discussion no admin should act without paying attention to a consensus established here. Blocks are supposed to prevent damage to Wikipedia, and this block would make no difference as Neelix has already agreed to cooperate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Blocking would be appropriate if his response was to deny that there was a problem and start a new round of mass creating silly redirects. It's not an appropriate reaction to "I'm sorry. I won't do that anymore." Everyking (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose- a block now would be purely punitive. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - still no evidence of deliberate, intentional, or malicious wrongdoing, and zero evidence of continuing disruption. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, pr nominator. He has had his second chance; ...and horribly misused it. Huldra (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, per BMK and others. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose though my position stated above is till held. Collect (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

List of the original redirects
Since people have been !voting on what should happen to Neelix, I've realized that his most egregious examples of "bad" redirects are only to be seen mentioned in this thread, as single examples. I assume a lot of the redirects have been deleted (either by Neelix himself or by others). Many redirects I'm seeing now in his contributions list are either okay or simply redundant, but not "terrible". I know that administrators can see the full list of created redirects, but I reckon the rest of us can't. I think to appreciate the extent of the "damage", everyone should be able to see the full list, even as the worst culprits get deleted. Can someone please provide it? LjL (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * These are what I found through viewing admin deletion logs:  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=&limit=250&type=delete&user=Liz&page=&tagfilter=] and I think get the worst 1000 or so. This is a link to Neelix's deletion log  where it is possible to he how much help he has provided - very little to date - in cleaning this up.  J bh  Talk  22:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like got a lot of the really bad ones. Who can forget such timeless classics as Booby surgeons, Titty waist hip measurement, Milks boobies, and Titty physics? And, apropos, Booby fetishism and Titty fetish. Thank God he apparently never heard the term "jugs" or "rack" or other similar slang or this would have been many times worse.  Kelly  hi! 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Links appear elsewhere on this page, but the thread is so huge, it's worthwhile to repeat them in this section: The complete list is available at User:Anomie/Neelix list. If that page is too large for you to load, you might go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/earwig-dev/neelix/chronological.html. Items that were deleted by me and Drmies on Friday Thursday night (before the lists were prepared) are not included. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kelly, not that it means much in the scheme of things but Titty physics wasn't one of his, but a very long-standing redirect, and is actually probably legitimate (although "boob physics" and "breast physics" are probably more common terms). It's a recognised problem in computer animation and videogame design that animating female characters is notoriously difficult because breast tissue doesn't move in the way other parts of the body do, meaning animation software needs a separate specialist plugin for—um—jigglage. (A couple, of reliable sources in respectable media outlets discussing the matter.) &#8209; iridescent 18:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, you learn stuff even on this board. Kelly  hi! 18:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can also check Neelix autopatrol log. --79.233.121.48 (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

absolutely amazing - from Booby bars to The Christian Book Sellers Association back to Lick breasts in a few days. Legacypac (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Fansite farm
There's another type of cleanup needed - I've started on it but I'm Neelixed out for the day. There's a whole crop of articles related to Tara Teng and her favorite cause, which is human trafficking apparently. A good example is Iris Thomsen, which contains one or two sentences about how she won a beauty pageant and then an extensive description of her friendship with Tara Teng. There's also a big crop of advocacy articles about minor local organizations, figures, local theater actors etc. that have some kind of connection to Teng's activism. I took a quick run through User:Neelix/Articles and AfD'd the worst offenders but more work is likely required. Kelly hi! 17:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This was called to my attention by someone offsite but the Great Booby Rampage seems to have started not long after Teng posted an Instagram photo of herself breastfeeding her child. Kelly  hi! 18:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It started before then on Commons; after retiring here, Neelix began creating GBR categories there in January 2015, beginning with Commons:Category:Blue pasties. Here, most of the articles I've looked at in Template:Prostitution in Canada were begun by Neelix, as was the template itself. You've already AfD'd several of them. NebY (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I just cut massive amounts of non-notable junk from Tara Teng (she likes to visit the aquarium I learned) and AFD'd a local dance studio that performed somewhere the amazing Tara was at once, but there is way more to do. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but did you know she likes to go barefoot and wear dresses? And when she was in grade school she learned slavery was wrong. She's so amazing! Kelly  hi! 10:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, did you know that "as a child, she read about Amy Carmichael, who had sought to end the prostitution of children in India"? BEST. PERSON. EVER. epic genius (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was impressed that she speaks 4 languages until I checked the source and saw she speaks SOME Chinese and Malay, which is not surprising since her father immigrated from Singapore. What I can't figure out is why her parents don't have Wikipedia articles too, given they get mentioned so often in the sources and they bore this AMAZING young women. Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to whoever closed this section: Teng's article has everything to do with this editor - he created a shrine to her. She seems to be a very nice person and very passionate about her causes, the problem is with the Admin that built the shrine. Legacypac (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

a passing non-admin chimes in
Hi. As a non-admin this seems like an easy one. The editor thought he was doing fine. Seriously, he thought, that since no one stopped him, the Wikipedian community approved. Ten of thousands of edits, nobody told him to stop that nonsense. He saw purpose in those edits, and thought others did to. His user page picture looks like a teenager, so his creative teenage male mind focused on all the terms it could think of concerning the vocabulary of human sexuality, reasoning "If I could think of it, someone may also think of it and look for it on-line, and in that case it will redirect them to Wikipedia" and went about his merry way on what will probably become a legend about Wikipedia and require its own mainspace page and possible category. But for now he's been seen, and aghasted at, and roundly spanked (is there a redirect to roundly spanked?), and should be let loose to go back and work upon his very very good edits and his beneficial additions to Wikipedia. He had his own day! Not everyone gets that user template, he earned it. I'd say give him a redirect-ban, and let the living legend live on here to continue some really nice additions to the project. Randy Kryn 17:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * One problem with that theory is that he was warned before (by means of a block) because of his absurd redirects, in 2010, and they weren't even this absurd yet, I reckon. By the way, most of us "chiming in" here are not admins... while this guy is an admin, and should know a lot better. LjL (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, never knew that, about the non-admins. Thought it was a closed forum. Even if he was blocked once I think a very minor punishment is better than a long ban. The resulting discussion of this, and how funny it is, is both shame and honor enough. Judging from his comments that I've read (haven't read the whole epic) he will certainly not be redirecting things again, which means that all of the energy and man-hours he threw into a personal project (that he somehow thought was okay because nobody stopped him again, not since 2010), will now go into the area of his editing and communicating expertise. He's a kid, he's likely to be editing Wikipedia for decades. Give him a break now and the project comes out ahead. Randy Kryn 18:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, don't block him, but don't allow him to continue as an admin, either. If we do, what message is sent, what example is given?  That teenage admins can get away with shit like this because they're teenagers and "aw shucks", he learned his lesson?  Sorry, but this goes beyond all that.  He's lost the community's respect and trust.  If he had done all of this before being handed the bit, no way would he come out of his RFA successfully.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  11:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He's not a teenager, he is a teacher in a university. Legacypac (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Another says: yes, but the wikihounding of Neelix also has to stop
I also want to call attention to a pattern of Afds by User:Kelly that also amounts to WP:POINTy behaviour and WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Apparently, any article Neelix created apparently has to go, and fast, based often on flimsiest rationales. See for example these four: ... which are especially poor noms. I wasn't aware of redirect issue with Neelix. But I don't like to see Canadian charitable organization articles taken to Afd simply for having committed the cardinal sin of having been created by Neelix, which in some cases, is all that is "wrong" with them. This is not how Afd is supposed to be used -- this is payback, not good editing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Servants Anonymous Society
 * Articles for deletion/ACT Alberta
 * Articles for deletion/NASHI
 * Articles for deletion/A Better World
 * User:Kelly nominated some real junk too by Neelix that is going down at AfD. A little hypocritical of Shawn to be mass objecting to each nomination purely based on who nominated them. AfD will correctly sort out the keepers from the junk. Legacypac (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how Afd is supposed to be used. We're supposed to do our WP:BEFORE work, we're supposed be motivated by a desire to WP:PRESERVE content, not punish. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article Begging the question may provide some insight to what's wrong with that sentence. --Calton | Talk 16:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If any of this stuff can be salvaged then I'm glad to hear it. Frankly I've been removing some of Neelix's insane puffery like this and this from all over the encyclopedia, and I'm not the only one. A lot of these articles were created just to shoehorn in these Tara Teng mentions somehow, or to make her seem more important by having more blue links in her article.

At one point, this young woman, whose main reason for having a BLP here is that she won a beauty pageant, had an article longer than Dalai Lama.

gets a good-natured trout for promoting Tara Teng to good article when it looked like a stalker's shrine. Also and  for blindly reverting editors who were trying to trim some of the crazy level of detail, and  who protected the article when it was in that state. Someone should have seen then that Neelix had a problem and intervened, it might have prevented what ultimately happened. Kelly hi! 09:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and gets a trout for this. Just because someone has authored a featured article doesn't mean they get a free pass or that their articles can't be edited. Also goes for . The only voices of common sense on that page are  and the checkuser/clerk. Sometimes when an article draws in attention from off-wiki it's for valid reasons.  Kelly  hi! 11:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And there's this Afd, too -- Articles for deletion/Timea Nagy (activist) -- from a different nominator. It seems to be on its way to deletion but for the life of me, I can't see why, per WP:GNG. But we seem to be gripped by Tara Teng Derangement syndrome. Shawn in Montreal 16:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"Wikihounding"? Oh, grow up. --Calton | Talk 16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be a good idea if he is topic banned from both Tara Teng and Human trafficking broadly construed. I do not know if ArbCom will look at topic ban remedies or just de-sysop, it depends on the case scope. If not this needs to be revisited before he starts this whatever it is back up. J bh  Talk  16:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'd support a topic ban on 'Human trafficking broadly construed'. He's created a number of perfectly valid articles on NGO human rights orgs in the field, which appear to have nothing to do with Teng -- but are at Afd mainly because they're being tarred with the same brush, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What are examples of these valid articles? I don't think he should get a topic ban from human trafficking if they're free from Tara Teng. Note that Servants Anonymous Society includes a photo of Tara!!!! —Мандичка YO 😜 16:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've also been questioned on my talk page about this by - answering here. Short answer - aside from (but probably related to) his fascination with Tara Teng and titties, Neelix also gave interviews to the press identifying himself as an "advocate" and "well-respected Wikipedia writer" (ahem). These are mutually exclusive when you edit in your area of activism, which he was most certainly doing. There's a big conflict of interest there - now, I left the obviously notable organizations and people alone (aside from cutting out Tara Teng fluffery) but a large proportion need to be looked at by the community for failing WP:NORG, WP:AUD, and WP:NPOV. That is now happening at WP:AFD and the debates will play out. I think the worst of this has been addressed though cleanup will continue for some time.  Kelly  hi! 16:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've linked to four Afds to organization articles that I think fit the bill, at the top of this section.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ...aaand it looks like Tara Teng has been relisted as a Good Article despite all of this drama. This place never fails to entertain. Kelly  hi! 17:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been relisted, it's because you opened and closed the GAR unilaterally without any other comments, which is not how the GA procedure works. As the instructions say, "the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it". In that resspect, it's not really any different than the Motorhead FA review which despite all parties thinking it didn't have a hope in hell of meeting the FA criteria anymore still took 2 months to go through. I know people are tripping over themselves to shit on Neelix from a great height, but just have a bit of patience and follow given content procedures calmly, before they backfire on you. Be cool, people. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All that's happened is an administrator has re-added the removed template because the discussion hasn't closed on delisting. This is sort of my point: in the current hysteria over Neelix, boobies, Tara Teng and what have you, we're not going to shut down Wikipedia policy like this is the first time there's ever been a problem. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)It's really not what we need to have more off-wiki attention on this, talking about a stalker writing an article about the object of his affection and Wikipedia maintaining it as a "Good Article" despite all of this creepiness coming to light. In any case the article is still carrying a bunch of maintenance tags and no longer resembles the article in the form it was in when listed. It's really WP:BURO to insist on process in situations like this but there is a lot of that going around, apparently. Kelly  hi! 17:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, I suggest you start a thread on WT:GAN saying that any editor should be allowed to delist a GA because they felt like it without any other comments or views from third parties. I suggest starting with Byzantine. Now, there's a bag of Monster Munch over here with my name on it, so if you don't mind..... <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And part of the 'hounding' includes language. Neelix chose to divulge his real name. There's a real person out there reading this, who's been nothing but cooperative and apologetic, who feels dreadful. I can't imagine how low he must be feeling. To publicly call him a "stalker," as you have done, could be construed as defamation. Which again we have a policy about. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm quoting the terms used in the off-wiki conversations already taking place. I'm not calling him a stalker, they are. Kelly  hi! 17:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Noted. Poor guy. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you truly looked at the tens of thousands of appalling and inexplicable redirects (like Shrunken titties) I think you'd feel less sympathy. A collection of admins and editors have spent hours deleting the worst two or three thousand of them and looking at the rest. If Neelix truly felt apologetic and cooperative, he'd help more in the clean-up efforts. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But he has offered to help. In fact, it was his very last edit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - actually he posted on his Commons talk page after that. Kelly  hi! 18:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I know. He offered an apology and expressed how dreadful he feels and got a good kicking in return. Look, I know people have reasons to be upset. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @ - I think the case will show that there are "tens of thousands of redirects," of which a small — but still significant and concerning — fraction are "appalling and inexplicable." The big majority are not appalling and not inexplicable. I doubt many people will argue that he should keep tools in the aftermath and I think there would be strong support for a ban on creation of anatomically-related redirects, but the whole of the 50,000 or 80,000 redirects may be summed up with the word "banal" rather than "puerile." Carrite (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ...Anyway, we're going to need an uninvolved editor to conduct the GAR. (I was involved in the past, so not me, though I would have liked to do this.) Any takers? epic genius (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Coming back to the original topic of this sub-section, in a hasty attempt to address Neelix-related problems unrelated to redirects, made dozens of rapid-fire deletion nominations, clearly not following WP:BEFORE, and in turn creating another mess for others to clean up. While some of the articles look to merit deletion/merge/redirect, of course, several of them easily pass their relevant notability criteria. Meanwhile, the resentment against Neelix is such that we have others following behind Kelly to mass !vote on these AfDs with clearly mindless rationales (if any is given at all -- and many of them don't). The point is, these articles are not the big problem at hand. I understand the ill will for Neelix, but these aren't the sort of articles that need to be urgently deleted in bulk, and it creates extra work for AfD participants (and AfD gets thin participation as it is). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 01:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's very sad that we lost a quality article like Pimp stick, and might lose articles on a slew of minor Canadian theater figures and local Salvation Army shelters and people who once met Tara Teng. If you feel they meet the notability criteria, then show that they do. Kelly  hi! 02:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * have you actually waded through all this shit? The issues concerning Neelix go way beyond redirects, but include paid advertising/advocacy and other serious judgement concerns. has not made any "hasty" nominations. He has created 5,000+ articles and she has nominated maybe 30? She probably reviewed 10 for every one she nominated. AfD is hardly overloaded and nobody is mass voting - vote numbers don't count and each article is being analyzed on merit.  —Мандичка YO 😜 08:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * pimp stick, which was indeed speedied/snowed, is not a helpful metonym to talk about all 40-something of them, which includes several e.g. non-profits and activists in addition to non-notable actors, etc. That they were created because of Neelix's particular interests doesn't mean they're not notable, though it might mean they need cleanup. If you feel they meet the notability criteria, then show that they do. - Indeed. The problem, however, is AfD isn't a place to throw a big bag of nominations at a wall just because they connect to a particular editor's fixation and look like they might not be notable, then see who comes forward to do WP:BEFORE and !vote keep where appropriate. I haven't waded through as much as others, and if most of the nominations are appropriate then it's true my perspective is colored by having come across a bunch of the inappropriate ones first. That's the first I've seen anyone mention a connection between these nominations and paid advocacy/advertising. Regarding probably reviewed 10 for every one she nominated - They were nominated within a few minutes of each other. I'm not here trying to say Kelly needs to be admonished or something. I can even assume good faith that maybe Kelly searched through a bunch, kept tabs open, and then went back and nominated them all in succession. My point is an appeal to slow down with these nominations and be more careful -- and for those who are mass voting to try to separate these noms from the rest of the headache I know people are feeling due to Neelix (I'm not going to name names at this point -- and I'm not talking about you, Wikimandia, to be clear -- but there are at least a couple people who made insubstantial !votes at dozens of these AfDs in a matter of minutes). Also, by AfD being overloaded I mean it doesn't see enough participation, which is pretty well known at this point, even if many of these have attracted participation.
 * How about this for a compromise: PROD instead of AfD? Gives some time to see which should be either salvaged or go through AfD later without the immediate pile-on and using already spread-thin human eyeball resources. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, prod seems like a good suggestion for the borderline cases. Clearer cases should still go to AfD though, which was the vast majority of the ones that I sent yesterday. I'm seeing few, if any, of those that are "snow" keep. But I do appreciate the input. Kelly  hi! 13:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I really think you need to WP:AGF with Kelly's intentions. I don't see any that are speedy keep, which would be an indication of a faulty nomination. Just because you personally are against deletion does not mean it is a bad nomination. In addition just as you say there are also people recommending deleting en masse, there are also people insisting they be kept without actually presenting any evidence of notability!  I recommended keep for NASHI but only after spending a full hour trying to find any sort of confirmation of notability in Russian/Ukrainian sources that would indicate they really do anything overseas. (And even then the source I found didn't mention the org by name and I had to do detective work there, and it's still sketchy.) Yet the very first person to comment (Shawn in Montreal, who has complained about these being Canadian) recommended keep, despite presenting no evidence of notability, stating that it is "Part of series of flawed Canadian charity group nominations from this editor." So bias goes both ways. Neelix is the one who has created this shitstorm, and its fallout is of course affecting AfD. Since Nov. 6, Liz has created 50 AfDs - that is not really a big deal, and I bet 75% will be deleted. If Kelly feels some may be questionable she can PROD them, but almost every one I click on is ridiculous and part of his walled gardens for Tara the Great or The Greatest Play in the History of Theatre. Please, instead of being lobbing complaints about Kelly, who is doing a tremendous service, pull out a shovel and try to help clean up.  —Мандичка YO 😜 14:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't see any speedy kept because you can't speedy keep an article that someone threw out a kneejerk delete !vote in. And even if that weren't the case, that there are no speedy keeps does not mean WP:BEFORE was followed, which was the entire point here. The problem, especially when there are circumstances like these, is that if you don't perform WP:BEFORE the best case scenarios are articles that should be deleted are deleted and other people do the work to determine notability and keep some of them. But in addition to other people having to do that work, there's also a risk -- especially with circumstances like these -- that other participants won't do their due diligence either, resulting in not just faulty nominations, but deletions (or more time consuming keeps). You can point to all of the egregious examples you like, but it doesn't justify the whole (and that might be where our central point of disagreement is). The question isn't whether I personally do or don't agree with any particular nomination, it's whether proper process was followed such that the articles are given the same chance every other article is supposed to be given before nominating.
 * In addition just as you say there are also people recommending deleting en masse, there are also people insisting they be kept without actually presenting any evidence of notability ?? You just said nobody is mass voting - vote numbers don't count and each article is being analyzed on merit. But yes, you're right. People are doing the same thing from the other perspective. I'm not defending that, and I've done no such thing myself. I have to admit, though, while I understand the frustration you, Kelly, et al. are feeling about Neelix's mess (and I know there's a whole lot more I haven't seen), I also understand the reactions by and others in response to the mass nominations and mass delete !votes (though, again, I wouldn't condone poor keep rationales any more than I condone poor delete rationales). As far as I'm concerned, both sides speak to the messiness of such nominations.
 * Ultimately, however, I did just say I was ready to AGF about Kelly. I think the nominations should've been done differently, but as I'm not looking for any retroactive action and as Kelly is entertaining the use of PROD for borderline cases, using AfD for the rest, my gripe is more or less addressed. Also, I have to get to work. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 14:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I over-reacted, I know. I still think Kelly's net was cast a bit too widely but the majority of his Afds are gonna succeed. So then we're talking about a few judgement calls. I think this Neelix thing is pushing a lot of people's buttons. I liked the guy and more importantly, I'm very passionate about WP:PRESERVEing when possible, growing Wikipedia as an knowledge bank even when articles are not WP:PERFECTION -- especially when it comes to Canadian articles. As discussed above regarding the GA thing, I don't think there's any need to rush around and be hasty. The Teng thing's been overblown, I think. And I also think Kelly's generally handled it well when people -- well, this person, me -- got heated. I do hope Neelix participates in all this, somehow.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but when an editor created over a hundred redirects in a row using made up words like oliveishgreen it is hard to spend a lot of time thinking about what to PRESERVE because evidently little thought went into the value of the redirect when created. I see this issue as SPAM to up his edit and page creation counts for personal fame. Nuke it all. And as someone who trimmed [Tara Teng] - I had to read all the intimate details and it was painful. Never met her but I've dated girls for months and never learned that much about them. The article was seriously creepy. Legacypac (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban Neelix for sexuality (withdrawn)

 * This is seriously too much and is making me literally sick. I don't know if I'm supposed to suggest this at ArbCom, but since people above were discussing it, I'm going to be bold and say Neelix needs to be topic banned from anything related to sexuality, including nudity, female anatomy, human trafficking, prostitution and rape. When you go through all of this stuff together, it's just too overwhelming. I'm reading these articles he created on human trafficking and former prostitutes. These are articles related to people who are repeatedly victimized and sexually violated, and I have a serious issue trusting the motivation of someone who thought it would be a good idea to create 34 permutations of "Run or rape game" as redirects to Gender representation in video games, a three-sentence section that does not mention the term. Nor does any reliable source ever mention the concept of such a video game genre called "Run and rape" - it's apparently a very niche market and only found on forums and rape fetish sites. It's not even on Urban Dictionary. That there are admins and long-term editors on here defending him is inexcusable and an embarrassment. If Neelix were not an admin, I seriously doubt he would have so many defenders.  —Мандичка YO 😜 19:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. Run or rape games are certainly, verifiably a thing, and if they offend you, well then congrats, you're probably human. The internet is horrible, but we don't censor things for being just fucking awful. (Don't click that link by the way if this thread offends you). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not about NOTCENSORED. You didn't even read what I wrote if you are providing me a google search for the phrase. We don't add things to Wikipedia just because they are discussed on forums. Please go back and read what I wrote and then tell us how it's an improvement to the encyclopedia, and if you believe Neelix has shown the judgement needed to edit this topic. —Мандичка YO 😜 07:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as related and redundant with the redirect-creation topic ban already asked above. As it is clear Neelix created tons of silly, improper, unnecessary and even offensive sexuality-related redirect, I see no evidence that Neelix has ever edited a page related to sexuality in a disruptive or even just problematic way. If evidence will be showed, feel free to ping me and I'll change my vote above accordingly. Creating articles related to prostitution or sex slavery, or better in the case of Neelix articles about activists and charitable associations that actually help human trafficking, prostitution and rape victims, is not in itself problematic (maybe the opposite). Cavarrone  10:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm sympathetic, but now that Neelix's work in this area has been brought to the limelight, I don't think we need to worry about him continuing down the same path. This will also be subject to an ArbCom case, which is probably enough torture to put them through. Alakzi (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neelix's primary interest in the sexuality area seemed to be as a fervent prostitution "abolitionist." There's a detailed Wikipediocracy article about his work here from last January, which I gather all of you have read, as well. I can see that some of the 80,000 or so redirects are bizarre, even disturbing. But from what I can see, I think his motives are being misinterpreted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * His strange categorizations of hundreds/thousands of nude photos of women at Commons, along with the creation of endless categories involving nude women over there, has led people to assume otherwise I think. Kelly  hi! 15:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about what he's been doing on the Commons, to be sure, but Neelix was a prolific worker as I recall when I was more involved in Montreal archival photo categorizing. Perhaps his work around "nude women" was a subset of a much larger body of work? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a few exceptions, but it's mostly NUDE NUDE NUDE. Kelly  hi! 16:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good lord you're right. I thought I remembered interacting with him around Canadian archival photos -- maybe not on the Commons. I dunno. Strike thru oppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then again, his category work is a tiny subset of his approximately 65 K Commons edits. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to withdraw this because I feel he should have a project-wide ban from ArbCom. See comments on Commons discussion. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirect Madness
While breasts brought this to wide attention, I've been looking through his other redirects. Look at 26662 to 26736 found here because that seems like overkill of redirects to Three-axis stabilisation, a three sentence article with no references that has sat hardly touched for many years. Nominated as a group for deletion. Then he pointed several hundred redirects at Polycephaly as seen here  and here. Seriously who sits down and thinks up over 200 ways to say multi-headed? I suggest others work on mass deletion nominations like these Legacypac (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone who doesn't seem to understand the purpose of redirects or even how search engines work, given that these variations are totally unnecessary. You get the same exact results whether you google "Eight-headed" or "Eight headed" etc. It's a great way to bloat edit count however. —Мандичка YO 😜 08:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I found 398 redirects created one after the next to Insulated glazing. That is just spam or a misguided attempt to run up his page count. Legacypac (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Super Helpful List by number targeted at each article: https://tools.wmflabs.org/earwig-dev/neelix/targets.html Legacypac (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have started to clear up a number of these double glazing redirects. I have used WP:CSD for the first batch, but that's not strictly within policy as they weren't recently re-created. However, I am assuming the comment upthread "Considering that there seems to be so much opposition, I will not object to the redirects being deleted" as an implicit endorsement of speedy deletion via WP:CSD. If anyone objects, shout before I do another bunch. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those had already survived one RFD, and there's another discussion active, where some of the deleted redirects are likely to be kept. I've recreated two (double-glazed and double-glazing) as they were linked in articles. "Recently noticed" instead of the "recently created" part of R3 is acceptable, but when considering whether to delete it's important to check page history and incoming links, particularly from articles and RFD. Peter James (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of Admin Tools?
In this way article he has used Page Protection on his own article claiming persistent vandalism, but all people were trying to do was trim it back into a better form. Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant see edit history over months, and talk page. It still needs an ax to get it into a reasonable length and tone. Legacypac (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No comment on content issues, since this is ANI, but per User talk:Neelix/Archive 21, it appears Neelix has already accepted the issue of WP:INVOLVED and moved on. I can see this as evidence to contribute to a bigger picture of admin abuse, but since this appears to be an isolated incident and unrelated to bigger issue of inappropriate redirects, I don't believe community-level sanctions are necessary for these events specifically. Mz7 (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom case request
In case anyone missed it, Arbitration/Requests/Case. Doug Weller (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: The request for arbitration has been accepted. The case page can be found at: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Mz7 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Closing out the Neelix thread
This thread has gotten very, very long - perhaps someone who knows how can collapse the sections that are no longer active. But ArbCom has accepted the case, and they will presumably deal with the question of his sysop bit. Redirect cleanup is underway, the Tara Teng walled garden has been bulldozed, and his other advocacy articles are being examined. There are however at least four community proposals above that we need a courageous admin to review and judge consensus:


 * 1) Neelix topic-banned or limited in regard to redirects (per )
 * 2) Neelix topic-banned on human breasts/human body  and/or sexuality and related topics (per ) withdrawn, see above
 * 3) Neelix indefinitely blocked (per )
 * 4) Neelix admonished (per )

Feel free to add if I've missed anything. Kelly hi! 13:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just reviewed them all again. In my judgment, the topic ban on redirect creation seems pretty clear but the others are divided and I don't think there's consensus. Just my 2p. Kelly  hi! 14:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've also just reviewed the various proposals, and I agree with Kelly that (unfortunately, from my POV), the only one of them that has a consensus is the one for a topic ban on redirects -- but even that has some variations in it to confuse the matter. An admin might like to consider imposing, on their own authority, a one-year topic ban on redirects as a synthesis of those views. ("On their own authority" means that it's not necessarily based on a straight-forward consensus, but is issued as a matter of administrative discretion, considering the evidence.)  Of course, since there's now an ArbCom case, it's likely that most admins will shy away from pre-emptively sanctioning Neelix, however much it may be deserved. BMK (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI I've withdrawn topic ban suggestion. The issues of Commons need to be dealt with and he should receive a site-wide topic ban.  —Мандичка YO 😜 20:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean a global topic ban? Not sure that's ever been done before without a global block or a global lock. epic genius (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Global bans, as a general concept, do exist. They're governed by the global bans policy, and they require a consensus at Meta to enact. A prerequisite to start any global ban discussion is that the user must be either indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. In other words, before considering a global ban, we should focus on local issues. Mz7 (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Foul language, incivility
I will not do any further commenting on this one.





Alex (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't see any foul language, and incivility is mild. Some people do not want these conversations on their own talk page. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What was the foul language, User:VS6507? No incivility I can see either. Can I ask if you were trying to use Alex Jones as a reliable source? AusLondonder (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming the foul language would be "bullshit" in the first edit summary. LjL (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

small note: Red marks inappropriate ways of dealing with other people. For more information read Emotional Intelligence, chapter 3: When Smart is Dumb by Daniel Goleman

edit Rationale= conspiracy bullshit :


 * First, YouTube isn't a reliable source. Second, Alex freaking Jones isn't a reliable source, and lining to a video from Alex freaking Jones from an unknown YouTube schlep is just icing on the cake. You shouldn't be editing any BLP articles if you think that those are reliable to use for BLPs. Now stay off my page . I've no use for Alex Jones conspiracy theorists . Dave Dial (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

My reply:

OK, I didn't want to insult you. But I actually have alternative reliable sources for the material, from the main-stream news websites. I agree that YouTube is generally not a reliable source. Alex (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As for your last edit rationale, you might want to take a look at this page WP:CIVIL. I really didn't want to upset you. Kind regards. Alex (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Their reply on my reply:

(Reverted 2 edits by VS6507 (talk): Rv - like I said, stay off my page [No. 2]. Use article Talk. (TW))

To highlight two, to be better seen:

CONSPIRACY BULLSHIT, STAY OFF MY PAGE

CONSPIRACY BULLSHIT, STAY OFF MY PAGE

Alex (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ask for more


(Reverted 1 edit by VS6507 (talk): Rv -- smh .. good luck with that. (TW)) Editor=DD2K

smh def:

Alex (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can understand your irritation but my own view is that 'bullshit' is not so foul as to be unusable on Wikipedia, especially in an edit summary on ones own talkpage and especially in the context used. Secondly, while "stay off my page" is direct, I don't feel it is uncivil. An editor does have the right to ask you not to post about a topic on their own page. AusLondonder (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

They can ask you, but they can hardly order you to do so. Unless they are Queen Cersei, "I order you to let me go". Alex (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If an editor asks you to stay off their talk page, you are required to do so. I don't know anyone who thinks "bullshit" and "freaking" are foul words. —Мандичка YO 😜 02:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User:DD2K is advised to exercise discretion in potentially offensive edit summaries. User:VS6507 is reminded to use reliable sources especially on BLPs. I don't think anything else is needed from an admin standpoint. Closing. -- Samir 02:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

POV-pushing abuse of sourcing at Maus
is engaging in the most bizarre POV-pushing at Maus over the use of "ethnic group" vs "race". I don't care which term is "correct", but this article is not the place to set up a battleground over it. What is totally over the top is Sigehelmus's abuse of the concept of sourcing: they are cherrypicking sources that use the term "ethnic group" rather than "race"—not sources that assert one term is better or more appropriate—and using them to cite the term "ethnic group" in the lead (and not to cite any content). The sources are divided—some use "ethnic group", others "race", and others both (or neither). Sigehelhus simply brushes off all of the sources that use "race" rather than "ethnic group" and continues to load up the lead with a ridiculous number of misapplied sources (again, none of the sources assert one term is more appropriate—he is citing the mere usage of his preferred term).

On top of this, to be maximally disruptive, Sigehelmus slapped a tag on the references section with no more explanation than "what a mess". The article is an FA that was on the mainpage this year.

If "ethnic group" is indeed a more appropriate term, Sigehelmus has to find a more appropriate way to deal with it than disrupting the article. Please take a look at my talk page where he continuously tells me that the onus is somehow on me (who didn't add the term to the article) to "prove" that the sources use the term "race"—and then ignores the proof I give to him where "race" is used in the title of an article published by Cambridge. The editor is not interested in discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Continuing not only to edit war, but to remove sources with no explanation. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , I have already reported you here first with my side of the story. Here is a transfer copy:
 * "(I apologize if this is in the wrong place, this is my first report!).@Curly Turkey: has insulted and threatened me several times and cursed like a sailor, all while violating many Wiki rules and being antithetical to the spirit of this site. I have attempted to defend my position with objective sourcing, but CT seems to prefer his own ownership of articles and logical fallacies and accusations over truth. All I tried to do was say that, much like Hakuna matata is clarified as not literally meaning "no worries" in Swahili, it is not "righting great wrongs" to put "ethnic groups" instead of "races" in the Maus article, and I already have three non-cherrypicked objective sources defending me. I have more, and he has nothing but being aggressive. I don't know why he's so stubborn when I have more defending me. Please help. I have cited some of the rules CT has violated on his talk page, he also seems to curse and be aggressive a lot to many other users on his talk page."
 * EDIT: Also, he seems to claim that just because an article has been featured it is invincible, which violates WP:NOTDONE among others.--User:Sigehelmus
 * You have not explained what is supposed to be non-MOS-compliant about the reference section, yet continue to tag it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the last time (of 2 that I saw) was a mistake in the revert, I apologize. I tagged it first because I saw a bunch of cite ref errors. When I said "what a mess", it was referring tot he nonstandard reference section which I had not seen before...--<font face="Helvetica"><small style="font-size:85%;"><font color="DarkKhaki">Sığe <font color="DarkKhaki">&#124;д=)  02:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also I would like to clarify I was in a rush when I rev'd the source he added to "race" which was just one cherrypicked compared to my currently four; it was a mistake. "Ethnic groups" is also found the same source he posted.--<font face="Helvetica"><small style="font-size:85%;"><font color="DarkKhaki">Sığe <font color="DarkKhaki">&#124;д=)  02:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The number of sources is irrelevant when they are all used in an inappropriate and unacceptable way. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * *bane voice*for you......   But the fact remains that then the citations are unneeded and in your own words you said ethnic groups is used just as often as race. Ergo, and considering my other arguments eberywhere, Ethnic groups therefore is more neutral, efficient, encyclopædic, and non polemical compared to race. Featured article or stub, I have more sources and less fallacies.--<font face="Helvetica"><small style="font-size:85%;"><font color="DarkKhaki">Sığe  <font color="DarkKhaki">&#124;д=)  03:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever voice you adopt, what you've just stated is gibberish and has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works. But thank you for demonstrating that you will allow nothing to stop you from forcing your POV on the article short of a block. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment CT's last post on Sturmgewehr's talk page was November 2, over a week before the Maus problem erupted. And yet somehow 689870587 this happened. Block for a week for canvassing and assuming bad faith, I say. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * uh what is canvassing? AL SO I have been thinking it over and I do hereby think that CT hereby has a bit of a point. Do you think the terminology matters in the long run? Also I thought sturm he was an admin. Sorry --<font face="Helvetica"><small style="font-size:85%;"><font color="DarkKhaki">Sığe <font color="DarkKhaki">&#124;д=)  04:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigelhelmus, content disputes are not discussed on ANI, so even if you decide you were wrong on the content the behavioral problems need to be dealt with. And Sturmgewehr88 is not an admin. And CT's post on the latter's talk page was most likely in relation to the unrelated History of Japan dispute, as you would have known if you looked at the timeline. You didn't; you assumed he must be talking about you. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the "sailor mouth" comment was referring to this, in which case I was talking to him, but the "fucking" sure couldn't be construed as a personal attack. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute and an edit war. ZERO discussions have been attempted on the article's talk page. I suggest staying off of each other's user-talk pages, sticking to the article's talk page rather than edit-warring (or face blocks for edit-warring), and if no understanding can be reached, utilizing WP:DR. Suggest an admin close this thread with no action. In terms of the content dispute, my personal suggestion would be to have the text read "races or ethnic groups" (or vice versa), since there are sources that use each term, and since Maus is a well-known allegory of Nazi anti-Semitism, and Jews are commonly regarded as a different ethnic group than Aryans rather than a different race. Softlavender (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a content dispute—only one of us has taken a stand on the most appropriate term. This is entirely about behaviour and a grotesque and persistent abuse of "sourcing".  Does Sigehelmus wants to revert and start an actual discussion? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is indeed an edit war and a content dispute, and Sigehelmus is correct that the difference between Jews and Gentiles is a matter of ethnicity, not of race. (Paging and, two seasoned sensible editors who happen to be Jewish.) The fact that you have neither edited collaboratively with him nor accepted his citations nor initiated discussion or WP:DR on the article-talk page could explain his accelerating the dispute and edit war into further fields. If you would have both stepped back and observed policy this could have been easily resolved, and it still can be if you are willing to let go of unheeding WP:OWNERSHIP behaviors and endless reverts and instead follow policy. Softlavender (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you've done a fine job of making gibberish of the situation. An army of ethnic experts is not going to solve the issue when the actual problem has nothing to do with race or ethnicity but with one editor's totally inappropriate methods of sourcing.  If you'd actually bothered reading the discussion, you'd've seen my opening comment where I declared "I don't care which is correct".  Next time you'll read what the actual problem is before embarrassing yourself like this, hm? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is, of course, a content dispute that should be resolved by discussion on the article's talk page. Because the dispute has spilled over to this forum, and because I have been pinged, I will briefly observe that the Jews are an ethnic group, or more precisely an ethno-religious group, as opposed to a race. I am an American Jew with some Irish and Scandinavian ancestry. I am also a full part of the very same ethno-religious group as Black Ethiopian Jews often called Falashas, Arab Jews from Yemen and Syria, Maghreb Jews from Morocco and Tunisia often called Sephardi, Turkish Jews and Italian Jews who have lived in Rome since before Christianity existed. And of course, the Ashkenazi Jews of Germany, Poland,  Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and Lithuania. And so on. We are not a "race" in any ordinary sense of that term. We are a diverse ethno-religious group. Do not try to classify people with the full range of skin, hair and eye colors as a "race". That is foolishness, <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707"I>328   Let's discuss it  10:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, you can't have read anything but Softlavender's comment---you certainly haven't read my opening comment where I stated "I don't care which is correct". This is not a content dispute, and your comment does nothing to solve the actual problem. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I read your initial comment,, but asserting that "A" is "not A" is stunningly unconvincing. This is a dispute about the content of the article, and is therefore a content dispute. Your statement that you do not care which term is correct is very strong evidence that you should step aside from the content dispute, and let editors who do care about content and correctness resolve the content dispute. Thank you for stepping aside. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  10:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The dispute is not about the content of the article, so it can't be a content dispute. Seriously, what content do you propose I'm disputing? If you purport to have an interest in "content and correctness", how can you make such an ignorant, counterfactual claim? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "do not try to classify people": where does this even come from? Only puts to the lie any claim you might have to having read the discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Cullen: You are indeed right about the technical definition of "Jew". But that is irrelevant to the dispute at hand, since Sigehelmus would still be abusing sources either way. The mere fact that Jews are an ethnic group does not mean they are not a race; a good litmus test would be to take a term that referred to both an ethnic group and a race -- sources defining it as an ethnic group could not possibly be taken to mean "it isn't also a race". If that is indeed what has been going on here (I haven't checked in much detail), then Sigehelmus should be at the very least warned about the proper use of sources, not told that what he/she has been doing is the right way to go about resolving disputes.
 * And for the record, if one side of a dispute says he doesn't care about the article content in question, but has expressed concerns regarding another user's misquoting of sources and refusal to discuss on the talk page, it most certainly is not a content dispute, and users who have been saying otherwise should cease.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well cullen was polite about it but I will be a bit blunter since you dont seem to get it. If you dont care which is used, then dont edit the article. Given the massive amounts of hassle involved around race/ethnicity and classification for Jews, you are just causing needless hassle. It *is* a content dispute because one party is using a preferred wording with which you disagree. If you dont care, then it doesnt matter what position he takes. He could have taken the opposite position and used opposing sources and would you then be happy? Either you dont care what word is used, or you do care and you are trying to turn a non-event of a content dispute into something bigger in order to get your way. As it is, once the article started referring to 'non-Jewish Polish' then 'Race' became inappropriate given the differences in use between it and 'ethnic group'. Personally I think you do care because there have been discussions on the talkpage about that usage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The "actual problem" is that it is not "bizarre POV-pushing", as you put it in your original posting, to use "ethnic group" rather than "race". It's directly relevant to Maus. As it stands, the article says, for example, The book portrays different races as different species of animals—the Jews as mice, Germans as cats, and ethnic Poles as pigs,[6] among others. Spiegelman's depiction of different ethnic groups as different species directly addresses the Nazi view that Germans, Jews, Poles and others were each separate "races". It's absurd - to put it mildly - and of course a breach of WP:NPOV to perpetuate that view by describing them all as separate races ourselves. NebY (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigehelmus corrected a factual error in an article (Poles, Germans, and Jews are not "races"), CT then reverted it 8 times in 23 hours, even after Sigehelmus provided source after source. Also, CT is squabbling endlessly on his user-talk page and here, throwing around accusations like "POV pushing", "cherry picking", "trolling", "disrupting the article". If CT did not understand when he opened this ANI that Polish and German are nationalities and Jewish is an ethnicity, and that none of them are races, then he (hopefully) understands now, and the disagreements should be laid to rest. An error in an article is an error in an article, whether that article is a stub, a GA, or an FA. If instead he wants to escalate the problem, he should be prepared to receive a boomerang for edit-warring (8 reverts in 23 hours without a single effort at article-talk page discussion or WP:DR), and for false accusations of "POV pushing", "cherry picking", "trolling", "disrupting the article". As I mentioned in my initial post here, if he had behaved collegially in the first place the less-experienced editor would not have escalated to less appropriate behavior. But the initial responsibility for the failure of goodwill and a good outcome lay with CT, for immediately jumping to accusations and false claims and edit wars. Softlavender (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So you're going on record and saying that Sigehelmus's use of sources is appropriate. Please go on the record and say it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Another Neelix shrine help requested
I tried to prune down Jesus for President which is 99.9% Neelix work but I've been twice wholesale reverted by User:Walter Görlitz because " Perhaps you should approach this with a WP:NPOV and WP:AGF on the part of Neelix rather than making personal attacks against the editor." In fact, I hand summarized the article for a new lead. It's a 4 chapter book, with a massive article about it. Could someone look at this as I'm not edit warring over some silly book. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a board of requests for help with your editing. If you want third-party assistance or other help, there are locations for that. You're also misrepresenting your incorrect gutting of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm asking for help with Walter Görlitz's inexplicable wholesale guarding of the article. Anyone else is free to judge my edits, some of which he says are ok. but is to lazy to sort out from what he does not like. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to read the discussion at the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh this article needs to be gutted. It's pure promotion for the book. It's almost as long as Richard III and 10k longer than Julius Caesar! This is hardly that notable that it must be covered in such ridiculous detail, and the into is bloated to make it match the size of the rest of the article. There is no need for the review of the book from Mark Toley to be broken off intro its section. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Mark Tooley section of what he said about the book is longer than the Mark Tooley  article. Legacypac (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he mentioned the book's fonts in like three sections.... —Мандичка YO 😜 07:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeated speedy deletion and re-creation of Niraj Mahajan
I have never had to register an incident before - if this is not the appropriate place then please let me know, and point me in the right direction. Editor has created an autobiographical page Niraj Mahajan, with very minimal content. That page has been tagged for speedy deletion six times by five different editors. But each time it is deleted, the same editor re-creates it again. He/she has not provided any reason to keep the article, nor responded to any of the messages on their Talk page. It is wasting other editors' time - is this a matter where an Admin can assist?--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the page again, salted it and given a final warning to the creator. Sarah-Jane (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix did nothing wrong
Is it necessary to attack everything by Neelix? Especially with conspiracy theories about the people who helped him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.123.233 (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we let this go please, this page is almost nothing but Neelix-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  13:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Request to move article to draft page from sandbox
I have started a Wikipedia on Briannagh Dennehy (Entertainer) in the Sandbox. It has been rejected by the editor (KylieTastik), which is fine. Unfortunately, I am unable to move the Sandbox page to the "draft" page. Consequently, the unaccepted Wiki Sandbox page (with the editor's rejection notes) appears in Google searches.

Can someone please move to draft (or delete) the Briannagh Dennehy (Entertainer) Wikipedia Sandbox page? I don't want it to appear in Google searches until it is approved by the Wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DennehyJT (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive user & personal attacks
User disruptive on article Cate Blanchett, repeatedly restoring maiden name of non-notable mother of subject, which has been removed per editor commentary (e.g., Dwpaul's) on talk page, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPPRIVACY, and WP:ONUS. Also restored implication that mother is deceased when she is living per sources in article talk page.

User has engaged in personal attacks in article edit summary, article talk page and on my talk page. I ignored the first on my talk, since he reverted himself 5 hours later and on article talk, but he has continued: -- Lapadite (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * article edit summary: 07:44, November 7, 2015
 * article talk page: 07:52, November 7, 2015,
 * my talk page: 00:47, November 7, 2015; 07:46, November 7, 2015; 07:48, November 7, 2015.
 * also, his talk page: 09:02, November 7, 2015. -- Lapadite (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Enough. Enough. This guy Lapadite77 watched Inside the Actors Studio (someone should revoke his TV privileges). The following exchange occurred:
 * Cate Blanchett: "My father was American..."
 * James Lipton: "What was your mother, she was Australian"
 * Blanchett: "Yeah"
 * Lipton: "Way back?"
 * Blanchett: "Way back, of convict descent I think"
 * Cate Blanchett's mother's name is June Gamble, as established in this reliable source that no one has disputed. However, based on the television exchange I just mentioned, Lapadite77 decided that Cate Blanchett's mother's maiden name is "Wayback" ("Way back") and made that change. Now he wants to remove the name altogether.
 * Now, we all make mistakes. Even really stupid mistakes. I have no problem with Lapadite77 making a mistake. In fact, when we first discussed this, I was very cordial and polite. However, after that point, any sane human being should have realized their folly, laughed at their own mistake, and moved on. I find this a reasonable and rational reaction.
 * This guy Lapadite77, though, can't let go. I guess he thinks he never gets anything wrong, ever? And now he's decided that if we can't have "Wayback", we shouldn't list any name at all! He says that per BLP, we shouldn't list her mother's name at all, even though we list the names of parents of almost all reasonably famous people. Well, obviously, he doesn't actually believe that, he just doesn't want a non-"Wayback" name in there. We know this because he added the name himself, so apparently it was OK then.
 * So how am I expected to react? Why are we having this conversation? Why? Why do you I have to explain all this? It's such a nonsense issue, spurned by a silly mistake. Just because Lapadite77 misunderstood something on TV, we have to waste all this time? Really? If he doesn't expect personal attacks, what does he expect?
 * Again, We're having this discussion because Lapadite77 confused the question "Way back?" for someone's maiden name being "Wayback". So what do you want from me? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User does not mention that my good faith addition of "Wayback", after watching the cited interview, was made a month before he reverted it and I then started the discussion on the talk page. Editor commentary there agreed it was best to leave maiden name out because of ambiguity, and BLP was also cited (which says in the lead, "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy"; moreover the aforementioned policy sections (WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPPRIVACY) strongly recommend not including such insignificant info of non-notable family members. I'm not sure why All Hallow Wraith strongly pushes for its inclusion. More personal attacks from user: "fuck you" in his talk page edit summary. Lapadite (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You made a silly error, you were wrong, it's over, the page is back to normal (back to the reliably sourced version, by the way). The end. Stop talking about this. Why on earth are you still pursuing this? I just don't get it. I repeat, We're having this discussion because Lapadite77 confused the question "Way back?" for someone's maiden name being "Wayback". All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to close this as "no shit", but I'm afraid that this may not be enough for Lapadite. I would like for other editors to look at this; as I get older my ability to separate the absurd from the real is seriously declining. I guess this began when I started reading The Onion, and it's not helped by the recent discovery that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've requested full protection here due to the edit warring. Content not withstanding, no matter how frustrated a user becomes with others, there's really no valid justification for making personal attacks on Wikipedia. If one must release tension, it would be better to do so offline. The fact that All Hallow's Wraith has shown no remorse for such personal attacks is also worrisome. Suggest blocking user if this incivility keeps up. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 15:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd laugh at this, if this situation weren't so indicative of Lapadite77's editing behavior and attitude to dealing with other editors. He wants his own way, misuses BRD when he doesn't get it, then resorts to ANI's and RfC's when his filibustering doesn't eventually wear his opponent into submission. While I agree with 's point above, Lapadite77 has a tendency to bring this out in people: because if an admin doesn't step in, you're liable to get months and months of this and this and this. While this topic may seem completely ridiculous, I'd strongly suggest we all use this chance to determine whether Lapadite77 has the civility and competence to continue editing Wikipedia. He has been massively disruptive to several articles in his short time here. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , you really bothered to comment here? Drmies was on a past ANI discussion in which you, an involved and biased user with prior conflicts, made personal attacks against me and your own PA thread was deleted. What a joke. Please, stay away from me. Lapadite (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Snuggums, right, the reason I reported him was because he continued his personal attacks after he reverted himself, both on my talk page and the article's talk page, and he clearly has no problem with it. The content dispute itself (which is just him wanting the inclusion of the maiden name of a non-notable family member, against recommendation from BLP policy) would be settled at the BLP noticeboard. Lapadite (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Case in point. Lapadite77 is referring to this ANI, which was not "deleted" — merely archived due to inactivity, presumably because the ANI which he started blew up into a hitstorm. was never involved in any way whatsoever. This is just the latest in a long string of examples of Lapadite77 trying to tarnish the name of any user with which he has ever had a content dispute or some form of disagreement. For the record, I've not had any communication with Lapadite77 for the past year. I hold no ill will against him, but I must admit that I've seen him make edits to articles on my Watchlist which made my head shake. And it always ends up the same — if he doesn't get his way, he resorts to Badfaith accusations, filibustering and unnecessarily protracted ANI's/RfC's. As far as I can tell, he has never once accepted a consensus – he just bitches and moans and badmouths other editors wherever he can until all descent is lost in a mirage of filibustering. This thread here should be the straw that broke the camel's back. It is beyond ridiculous. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You know very well the separate PA thread you opened because your then ally was reported was removed from the active project page by an admin not long after you opened it. Another hypocritical, prejudiced, and fictitious diatribe from you speaks for itself. Another time you involve yourself in a discussion in which I am participant, and has nothing to do you, to laughably trash talk. It's harassment by now. Carry on please, and do support another user making personal attacks, but I've nothing else to say to you. Lapadite (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , please stop contributing to this thread or I will block you for disruption. I've seen enough of your personal attacks here to warrant a block--and that this stems from, ahem, a particular misreading would be funny if you weren't so serious about it., I don't have much of a problem with the occasional "fuck off", especially in a case like this, when someone has basically been baiting another editor. I'd still prefer it if another admin look over this and close it, if it needs to be closed--the sooner the better. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Personal attack? Where? And what stems from a misreading, the content dispute? It actually doesn't, as it doesn't concern the original discussion of "wayback" on the talk. The report is not about content dispute, that's for the BLP noticeboard, it's about personal attacks, which I assume you don't mind then? "when someone has basically been baiting another editor" - What in the world? Again, where? Drmies, I wonder, why in the world are you telling the editor who reported another on clear personal attacks to stop contributing to the thread (and threatening them with a block if they do so), make unwarranted accusations about them, say you don't mind the personal attacks against them, and you say nothing about the editor who just imposed himself here making personal attacks, which you know, from past discussion here, has done so before? If I remember correctly, if you distanced yourself from that aforementioned ANI report I made because you considered yourself involved (yet closed the thread), why exactly are you personally involved here again (and not in very good-faith manner), especially after this? Intentionally ignoring personal attacks and threatening a block on the user who reported it, I mean, really? Lapadite (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why can't you move on? Is winning so important? Judging by this section and a quick look at some of the diffs it is obvious that All Hallow's Wraith is not in the habit of doing bad things. Why would you think that inserting the mother's name was ok when you did it, but is WP:ALLCAPSVERYBAD when someone else does it correctly? Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Johnuniq. Lapadite, BOOMERANG. What those old cows you're dredging up from the canal (as the Dutch would say) are doing in here, I don't know. Drmies (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Page protected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd throw in an uninvolved comment, as I've seen everything that's been going on from a distance, and I understand that it's not my business. In my opinion, this has all been blown out of proportion, and what's been happening is really not as bad as Lapadite is making it out to be. From my point of view, it's obvious that AHW is just expressing his displeasure of being reverted all the time, and I can understand that. Additionally, Lapadite made a mistake, it backfired, and he changed tack (opting not to include the name at all when it is done everywhere else), which caused the conflict with AHW when he was trying to be civil. Lapadite is out to come out on top. I've seen it – beginning with the first proper edit that I made to the page, which was reverted by him. I think you need to let this go, mate. <font face="Arial"> 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  07:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , you asked me to clarify revert on my talk (though I'd given an edit summary). And not sure why you even bring up some irrelevant past revert on the page? Is there a grudge held over it or something? I wouldn't have presumed that from the discussion on my talk. Anyway, I don't know why a content dispute is being discussed and whose wrong or right in it, while the reason for the report (personal attacks) is sidestepped, since ANI isn't to settle/argue over content dispute; that can be discussed elsewhere (talk, BLPN, etc)., what's this shoddy claim about winning? The report is about the personal attacks from the user reported, evidenced by the diffs provided. If I was "reporting" AHW for some content dispute regarding PAG I would've gone elsewhere. So why are these comments only about the content dispute? Should one ignore repeated personal attacks and never report them? To answer your last question, Johnuniq, if the time of the diffs (given), the article talk discussion (linked), and what I'd stated in the OP is actually noted, one can see I hadn't inserted a maiden name, i'd "corrected" the one in the article after watching an interview with the BLP subject where I understood she gave a different one. Like I already stated above, that edit I made, changing the maiden name, was reverted by AHW a month later and then it was discussed on talk page, where I agreed it was ambiguous and where User:General Ization made a good point, and i'll quote: If there is ambiguity about Blanchett's response in the Inside the Actors Studio interview, as there obviously is, the Biography of living persons policy requires that we err on the side of not including the information in the article on the basis of this source. Find another source that resolves the ambiguity, or leave the content out. Later, I found a couple more sources that don't state "Gamble" (the maiden name originally in the article), which i'd posted on the talk discussion. AHW ignored that and still went on about "wayback" which had already been settled. The irony. The BLP policy, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPNAME, recommends against such inclusion, and WP:ONUS is also relevant, ergo, (as I already stated in the OP) per that and User:General Ization's point, I removed it. I couldn't care less about some maiden name, I do care if there is misleading information on a BLP and do uphold the BLP policy in its entirety. I'm curious why no one questions why AHW is so intent for so long on including such info; he hasn't let it go, even after "wayback" was settled and wasn't brought up again, still talking about it. The irony. On a slightly different note, I'm loving accusations from users who've disagreed with me in the past (and apparently hold some sort of grudge for it), and loving the passive embrace of personal attacks. Lapadite (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You inspired me to find and read Talk:Cate Blanchett where the colossal blunder concerning "way back" is explored. The "given the ambiguity" idea seems to occur in that section, but there is no ambiguity—your interpretation is blatantly wrong, and the fact that it was explained last April and you are still going on about it shows why an editor might snap and use some invective. Coming to ANI to get your opponent sanctioned might have felt like another good idea, but some of us are happy that editors are human with the consequence that they will occasionally say undesirable things—that is far preferable than someone who cooly was wrong last April and who is still causing disruption while remaining civil. If a comment like fuck off warranted, say, a 24-hour block, what sanction would be appropriate for someone who is still wasting time after six months? This is a collaborative project and we have to get on with other people. You are welcome to think that "Wayback" was a plausible name and everyone else is wrong, but you should still recognize that consensus is against you, and drop it completely . FYI, many editors find it a bit offensive to name, with no apparent reason, the father but not the mother (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So you just skipped over the entire part where "wayback" is not at all the issue, (except for AHW who's been red herring about it), not what the recent edit (mine at least) was about, and already settled - since April; clearly I never reinserted wayback after AHW reverted it and the discussion took place. Big face palm. Moreover, I don't really care if editors here decided personal attacks aren't an issue on WP, I just did my duty in reporting gross incivility including multiple personal attacks, like "back when he (crazily, in a nutty-as-hell manner) believed", "Lapadite77 is why this world is, and always will be, a horrible place", "idiotic", "stupid", "fuck you", "what the hell is wrong with you", "you dumb fuck". In my personal opinion, and certainly I'm not alone in the world in thinking this (lol), anyone who reacts and disrespects in such a way over some maiden name edit (and then sees nothing wrong with it after time has passed hopefully to recollect) has some issues; oh shoot, accuse me of personal attack now, please, so the irony comes full circle. But big cheers on embracing that and throwing out accusations at the person who reports them though. Lapadite (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So everything in my comments here is totally wrong, and you dismiss it all? Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Long term abuse by D4iNa4 continues. Indef should be reinstated.
As this concerns a user who was unblocked from an indef ban of Socking I will ping the unblocking admin so he can take part in this discussion. So Callanecc please be kind enough to take part in this discussion. In May of last year the said user was indef banned due to being a Sock. The investigation is Here. The major concern/telltale signs were his POV edits and extreme inability to get the point. He subsequently appealed to the block but was rejected. However, a second appeal was accepted on 2 July 2015. Almost at once he started removing Huge chunks of material from articles and anything that was against his POV came under attack. For example deletions like this, have now become a norm for him. I regularly edit indo-pak essays but seeing that he was going haywire I stood back to give him enough WP:ROPE. In the past three months he has done literally nothing on wiki except engage in edit wars and make edits which are regarded as vandalism. And I do mean literally. His contributions are entirely made up of Huge removals of sourced information and bickering on the ANI,DRN and other forums. As if going after articles was not enough he blanks TP's in his leasure time as well. redirects contentiuos topics without even talking about it. And if someone disagrees, there is no "discussion", he just redirects again. In light of this evidence, and seeing that ever since he was unblocked he has been given enough WP:ROPE but even then he has done nothing but cause nuisance, I'd like to recommend an indef as this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. To be frank when the very next messege on your TP after your Sockpuppet indef ban is an edit war notice, you should know that there is something wrong. On a side note: The user may say that I have a personal vendetta against him, but a simple look at my contributions will show that I have not engaged him in the past three months and have been giving him rope, I don't think I have reverted any of his vandalisms. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * D4iNa4 is one of the editors I had pegged as a sockpuppet (noted in my online sockpuppet notepad) before D4iNa4 was blocked as one. Not only did D4iNa4 sockpuppet, depending on what definition you use (for example, D4iNa4's definition), but D4iNa4 was clearly a problematic editor in other ways. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Also see this recent discussion, where I told D4iNa4, "You appear to be removing things from articles based on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT view." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyway, what made you to revert him blindly on India-Pakistan war of 1947? He was added citations where "citation needed" tag was present, you reverted him without giving any edit summary which is a clear cut abuse of twinkle. Specially this India-Pakistan topic is under discreationary sanctions.-- Human 3015   TALK   05:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Human3015. Yes, as I have made a report, I think rope time is over and I should remedy his vandalism from now onwards. Furthermore be kind enough to actually look at my edit. He added a POV essay as a source, I removed it and the (citation needed) tag was left in place. Experienced editors (and those who are not "pretending" to be naive 10 year olds) got the point as my revert has not been questioned. But since you are here please do two things. Firstly DO NOT bring content disputes into this investigation, you know that this is not the forum for that. Use the TP of the said article if you are mad about an edit I made, bringing this kind of dispute here is naive at best and hijacking at worst, I'll let you choose. Secondly, I would like to point out that 'you' are engaging me in debate here, I did not comment on your edits etc. So if your feelings get hurt in the process of my answering your concerns I am not responsible. You have a long history of running to ANI everytime I hurt your feelings, where people tell you to grow a thick skin. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think that sources have some problem then you are suppose to explain it in your edit summary. You have hundreds of edits on sensitive topics where you reverted people abusing twinkle and not giving any edit summary. And I see this ANI more like WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude. I can see you have commented "keep", "keep" on all AfDs started by this editor and also reverted them blindly. This editor may not share your POV but that doesn't meant that you should report him unnecessarily. There is something called WP:AGF. This editor has been unblocked for after one year of block and hasn't evaded block for one year. I see nothing wrong in unblocking him. Rather you should leave your WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude and WP:AGF.-- Human 3015   TALK   06:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF has been going on for three frigging months my friend, time for you to wake up. Wait, did you even bother to read my report, I have clearly said that I have been Assuming good faith for three months? Secondly, if you do not like my editing and think that I am in violation of policy, make a section and provide diffs. Simple as that. Make a section titled boomerang and provide evidence like I did. As I said before I try to make sure that anything I do without an edit summary is something which 'Experienced editors (and those who are not "pretending" to be naive 10 year olds)' will not question, and that is usually the case. To be frank, you are trying to hijack this discussion with thread style WP:BULLSHIT. So I will give you two options. Number one is to put your money where your mouth is and start a section detailing my bad behavior, provide diffs and I will counter. Just throwing around allegations is foolish and moronic as it wastes everybody's time. Number two is that make a section 'Oppose' where you give arguments showing the "good things" this editor has done in the past months so that you can counter my ban proposal. Thread style discussion without proof wastes time. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is misconduct from D4iNa4 with regard to blanking talk pages (which is recent) and contentious redirects without discussion (the engaging in edit warring to force it in), though I do note that the AfD agrees with D4iNa4 but that's not the point. I don't think there's a strong case to make for indef blocking D4iNa4 given that the last block was for sockpuppetry and that hasn't occurred this time. Whether a short block (week maybe) is needed or a stern warning to discuss (ie consensus is important) would be best in this case. What is an appropriate response will be largely affected by D4iNa4's response. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this blanking was to make archive of age old discussion. If you see talk page history and current talk page Talk:Idris of Libya there is an archive made by him where he saved all discussion. I think bot was not archiving since many years. He has saved everything in Talk:Idris of Libya/Archive 1 and linked it to talk page.-- Human 3015   TALK   07:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've struck that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This whole report misrepresents me. Nearly all of them are false statements on this report. Let me point them out quickly..


 * 1) OP calls this edit as "regarded as vandalism", this editor who called these edits a vandalism was blocked for 48 hours for it. Currently spending 60 days block. Current version of article supports my edits, as well as strong consensus on talk page.


 * 1)  This edit is current version and per consensus on talk page, with accordance to WP:BLPCAT. OP regards it as "deletion".
 * 2) This was not talk page blanking. But manual archiving.
 * 3)  Redirect, but this article is clearly going to be deleted. Callanecc, was there anyone else bringing it to talk page or AFD or adding more sources? It was me who stopped edit war by bringing them to AFD and I haven't edited these two articles since then. It was same day when I got to know that AFD can be created by any user.
 * 4)  this warning? I made two edits (-953) on this article during that time and current version supports my edits per strong consensus on talk page.

OP is clearly wikihounding my edit history and made disruptive abuse of twinkle rollback like this edit, which is violation of WP:BATTLE. Not to mention his "Keep" votes at Battle_of_Batapur,Capture of Kishangarh Fort even after knowing that these articles are non-notable and going to be deleted. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editing, personal attacks, and use of multiple accounts
, who also uses the account, has been editing tendentiously on File talk:Qing Dynasty 1820.png. He tagged at least five maps on the Commons as "modern fantasy" (see contribs), even though four different users have disagreed with him, see thread1 and thread2. When disagreed with him, he attacked Rajmaan as a troll. I then cautioned him against using personal attacks, but he responded by calling me a troll as well.

The person has been using at least two accounts on both en-wiki and the Commons (although to be fair, he does not attempt to conceal the fact). One of his accounts has already been blocked on the Commons for vandalism. -Zanhe (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Images hosted on commons are regularly dealt with at commons, not on wikipedia. It appears that he is trying to push his agenda on the talk page of the image file on English wikipedia simply because he cannot get his way at commons since he was blocked there with one of his accounts for disruption and runs the risk of of getting blocked again if he disrupts with his other account. This is cross-wiki disruption.Rajmaan (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For information, that's the same user than (that worked on en: and fr:, with a lot of unfair edits and removing of sourced informations and their references. He said in late 2014, it will work no more on wikipedia before creating the  account in february 2015 and working the same way.Popolon (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all above users. What he did was considered disruptive and it is now clear it was exactly him who makes POV push and tendentious edits in various pages in both Wikipedia and Commons. --Cartakes (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) About my wikipedia accounts. I have contributed for over five years, with no history of sanction whatsoever, in different Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects, with the following two successive accounts: Pseudois from July 2010 to November 2014 and 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 from February 2015 to early November 2015. As I decided to stop contributing, I asked both accounts to be blocked (on 1st November and 2nd November) in order to prevent any kind of vandalism or disruptive editions on my personal pages. A couple of hours after I asked my account to be closed, I noticed that user:zanhe removed the "disputed factual accuracy" template I had inserted. The template was removed despite several points raised by different contributors since years were not addressed. As 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 was blocked (upon my own request), I therefore created the account 6-A04-W96 for the sole purpose of reinserting the template and providing replies to the new comments on the talk page. The choice of the account name made it clear I was the same contributor.
 * 2) "When Rajmaan disagreed with him, he attacked Rajmaan as a troll (…) he responded by calling me a troll as well." Rajmaan was continuously attempting to derail and personalise the discussion with his countless digressions. While I consistently attempted to put back the discussion on the right track, he wrote "Thats not what you tried to say (…)you clearly didn't read (…) Are you going to claim that (…) You made your purpose here clear (…) you are clearly interested in deleting Tibet from the map and not actually interested in anything else". I did not call him a troll, but considered this attempt at derailing the discussion a "trolling attempt". I never called Zanhe a troll, but maintained in my talk page that Rajmaan comment was indeed a trolling attempt.
 * 3) "One of his accounts has already been blocked on the Commons for vandalism". See above about my contribution history. I believe this block is a clear misunderstanding and have asked (per e-mail) the common admin responsible for the block to reconsider it.
 * 4) "It appears that he is trying to push his agenda on the talk page of the image file on English wikipedia simply because he cannot get his way at commons since he was blocked there" This is pure nonsense and is another illustration of the countless insinuations I had to face from these contributors: All the edits in en.wikipedia were made before the account was blocked in common.
 * 5) "Images hosted on commons are regularly dealt with at commons, not on wikipedia. (…) This is cross-wiki disruption". The discussion was initiated in 2009 on the English Wikipedia page. When I came across this discussion 6 years later, I consistently continued the discussion where it started. As this page is not visible for non en.wp contributors, I inserted a link in the common page so that the discussion remains centralised.
 * 6) "He tagged at least five maps on the Commons as "modern fantasy", even though four different users have disagreed with him". First of all the words "modern fantasy" and "digital manipulation" have been used by several other contributors over the past 5 years. I believe the inclusion of the "Disputed factual accuracy template" in the file description was more than justified. A look at the talk page shows that at least 7 different contributors have raised/acknowledged issues with this map, many of those have only be partly addressed or not addressed at all:
 * 13 July 2010: "The map is a modern fantasy, and have no historical basis"
 * 14 July 2010: "Actually there are multiple reasons (…). That region was never solely owned by Qing Empire (…) Territories to the east of Khabarovsk were not populated not by russians not by Chineese and should be shown as neutral (…) In fact Chinese borders never not then not later crossed Amur river (…) Daur rulers decided to pay the tribute to the Qing, but that was never accepted by the Russian empire (…) Sakhalin was not known to the both empires (…) etc."
 * 10 September 2011: "(…) is right on this one. Heilongjiang, Jilin, "Uliassutai", Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Qinghai, and Tibet are all shown as provinces on this map even though, in 1820, all of these areas were outside of the China proper and were not administered as provinces and in many cases had only a weak tributary relationship with the Qing. In the case of some Turkic areas and most Tibetan areas (current Tibet, Qinghai, and western Sichuan), there was not even effective Qing control (…)I invite the author of the map or other users to address these issues so that the map or something similar can continue to be used in articles"
 * 22 September 2011: "Interesting logic regarding Sakhalin. How someone can own something, if they don't even know how it looks like?"
 * 23 September 2011: "I have stated my view above. I think it should be shown as unexplored and not claimed by anybody, i.e. gray"
 * 21 April 2012: "this map is modern fantasy, and have no historical basis for another reason: during the Qing dynasty there was no dotted-line as shown in the small box at the bottom left corner, The 11-dotted-line was not included in China map until 1946 or 1947"
 * 29 October 2012: "Good points. There continue to be issues with this map that have not been addressed. Qinghai was not a province in 1820 (and as the map notes, Xining, its capital, was part of Gansu until 1928), Manchuria is not shown on the map. The whole Inner Mongolia/"Uliassutai"/Huijiang division is questionable. (…) instead of starting with present-day boundaries and working backward, it would be better generated by working with contemporary sources as well as present-day sources that display a bit more heft than a Baidu Baike map
 * 13 May 2014: "The Chinese nine-dash map didn't appear until the Republican era in 1947. Based on which historical basis does it appear in this map of 1820 China?"
 * 14 May 2014: "I can not see nine-dash map in these maps. Why does this map have? Any evidence?"
 * 1 June 2014: "Why is this map used at all? Is it based on a real map? Why not use that map instead of using this one that had been digitally manipulated with countless anachronisms?"
 * 29 October 2015: "Agree. This map, as well as other similar fantasy maps produced by wikipedians should be removed and replaced by real maps."
 * 1 November 2015: "There might be relative minor issues need to be corrected (we can do it of course), such as in the case of Aksai Chin. Since the maps are generally identical, your claim that "they are not based on reliable secondary sources" is an exaggeration. Any other issues can you find besides Ladakh?"
 * 2 November 2015: "1) Sakhalin is not include in the Oxford map. 2) List of tributary/vassal states is completely different. 3) Internal subdivisions are not mentioned on the Oxford map, see for example the 5-6 subdivisions for Tibet."

To mention just one example, the way Sakhalin is represented has been disputed for over five years! "Tendentious editing", I believe, is not made by the contributor adding a " Disputed accuracy template", but clearly by those who have removed it, such as and.

I perceive this ANI as an attempt to tarnish my past contributions, and object to the three points raised above:


 * "Multiple accounts". The use of successive accounts did not breach any Wikipedia/Wikimedia policy.
 * "Personal attacks". I never called "troll" any of the two contributors mentioned above, but have considered the continuous attempts to personalise and derail the discussion by Rajmaan a trolling attempt.
 * "Tendentious editing". Considering the many concerns raised by the majority of contributors about the accuracy of the map, the removal of the " Disputed accuracy template" should be considered tendentious editing, but certainly not its inclusion.--Comptetemporaire2015 (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Multiple accounts: I see your accounts have been blocked on French wiki upon your own request (after you ran into disputes with other editors), but aren't you required to request unblocking before editing again, rather than creating multiple new accounts? Besides, your account has been blocked on the Commons for vandalism, not as a result of your own request. And none of your accounts have (yet) been blocked on English wiki, yet you keep creating new ones ( is the fourth that I'm aware of).
 * Tendentious editing: You keep rehashing the same old arguments over and over again, even though they've already been refuted by multiple users. Old issues such as the 9-dash-line and Sakhalin have long been addressed, both on the local talk page and on the Commons talk page, yet you keep repeating them. WP:REHASH is a typical behaviour of tendentious editors.
 * Personal attacks: Accusing of other people of "trolling" is personal attack . I cautioned you against it, which you summarily reverted while repeating the trolling accusation . -Zanhe (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Multiple accounts: Ironically, I am one of the few here who has never contributed simultaneously under different identifications, as it is the case of Cartakes aka Evecurid or Popolon aka 82.225.234.108 aka multiple complex IDs such as this one (I am not insinuating though that the simultaneous use of multiple identification by these contributors is breaching policies). It was quite obvious that the account 6-A04-W96 was blocked and tagged as a "vandalism-only account" by error. After I made the corresponding request, the block was immediately reverted by the same admin (see here and here).
 * Personal attacks. I don't see any new element in the comment above, it is just repeating over and over the same point (WP:REHASH).
 * Tendentious editing: The four contributors above have continuously claimed that issues raised by other contributors had long been solved and that I was the only one disputing the factual accuracy of the current map (e.g. "People raised issues years ago with old versions of the map, which appear to have mostly been fixed. You're the only one in the current discussion who thinks the map is inaccurate" "Don't bother him (…) All his work is mostly a POV-push", "Now it should be clear that it was him who makes POV push, and what he did is tendentious and should be reverted", "DHN raised an issue with the Nine Dash Line, which has since been removed. What other anachronisms are there?", "DHN's problem was only with the Spratly and Paracel islands and he had no issue with the other parts of the map", "You're the one who's being tendentious here, and nobody else agrees with your view", "You keep rehashing the same old arguments over and over again, even though they've already been refuted by multiple users")
 * A quick look at the file history shows that it was last modified on 17 May 2014 and that the section "Digital manipulation: Why is this map used at all? (…) instead of using this one that had been digitally manipulated with countless anachronisms?" was created by User:DHN on 1st June 2014. No change was made to the map between 1st June 2014 until I added the "Disputed factual accuracy" tag.
 * Representation of Sakhalin (as an example): even though Zanhe keeps affirming that "Old issues such Sakhalin have long been addressed", this is clearly not true. It is now 4 years since a contributor indicated that Sakhaline should be shown in gray, without any correction made afterwards. To the opposite, Zanhe claims that the outline of the map is similar to the one used in Oxford's Atlas of World History, while Sakhalin is clearly excluded from the Qing territory in this map. I tried to explain him that Sakhalin is not include in the Oxford map. In new attempt to justify the inclusion of Sakhaline, zanhe then cherry-picked four other historic map (all of them posterior to 1820, which is the year the "digital manipulation" is supposed to represent). Ironically, in 3 out of the 4 cherry-picked maps, the southern part of Sakhalin island is shown as belonging to… Japan!
 * As DHN mentioned in his last intervention, "countless anachronisms" do still persist on this map. As there were no further correction to the map afterwards, tagging its factual accuracy as disputed cannot be qualified as POV pushing. But removing this tag (1 and 2) is a clear attempt at denying the multiple anachronisms still affecting the map.--Comptetemporaire2015 (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 19th-century boundaries, unlike modern ones, were often vague and fluid, especially in remote wildernesses. As anyone can see in the dozens of 19th-century Qing maps presented in the Commons discussion by and myself, no two maps were identical, and people can always find fault with whichever map we use. Sakhalin is included in Qing in many maps, excluded in some, and half-included in yet others. Our map does include it, but clearly explains that it was claimed but unexplored (same situation as much of Siberia in 19th-century Russia). In any case, ANI is not the place for content disputes (which belong to the file talk page), but is for discussion of user behaviour, such as personal attacks, use of multiple accounts, and tendentious editing. -Zanhe (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * - why did you abandon the Pseudois account, and why have you now used 4 separate accounts? I'd be inclined to suggest you pick one and stick with it (I've blocked 6-A04-W96-K38-S41-V38 and 6-A04-W96 by the way). GiantSnowman 12:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * He also uploaded pictures with wrong description, see here,, this picture was mainly used in french wikipedia, as a road signs in Xinjiang (Xinjiang road signs have arabian writing on them), this is motorway entrance in Xi'an, from center-city to a eastern suburb. If it is really the author of all its uploaded pictures (EXIF time removed), I don't understand, as is also uploaded Xinjiang pictures, like here File:Ghulja-Yining_city_center.png, how this confusion can be done, there is more than 1000 km between Xinjiang border and Xi'an. All of this contributions seems to be oriented against People Republic of China, and han chinese, and for Tenzin Gyatso (13th Dalaï-lama) PoV. Details about himself, including historians, and even pro-dalaï-lama sources), was removed in french wikipedia, or the sourced fact that Mongolian practices also other religions than tibetan bouddhism (practiced about 50% of the population) detail about relation between Tibet and |Republic of China (1912-1949, now Taïwan) or Chinese Empire (the maps problem) too. He tried to remove information about Tibet I added, that was not in this interest, like ask for deleting of a page about (Tibetan) highland barlay, milk tea (delete instead of move on the good section)), description about multilingual including tibetan signs in tibetan inhabited area of Yunnan (see), etc... This main behavior is to remove content due to minor error instead, of correct it or move it the good section. (his french page, until he removed it, september 24 goes clearly in this direction (chinese panel with english grammar errors, Which one is a false lama? with the picture of the lastest panchen-lama, that has no meaning looking at history of lama leader choices)). He added source needed on ~ 150 pages in a row, on any page I modified, even for only grammar purpose or ponctuation sign, including some already sourced articles that should not be bad outside the current context. breackage of an article about tibetan muslims two parts tibetans muslims and islam on tibet with reference removal, some missing references half broken and without any new information, and finally adding source needed on the first one (looks like disorganization purpose on anything about Tibet that isn't bouddhist without any advantage)  Popolon (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a direct request from an admin to comment a specific point, I will abstain to comment this rather incoherent rant. Popolon, for your information, the "false lama" I was referring to is obviously the Vicuña, which, although being a camelidae, is not a lama. Get your biology right and do question your own bias in the way you perceive my contributions before continuing to insinuate everywhere that my contributions are biased. Thanks,--Comptetemporaire2015 (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon harassment

 * Followed me from multiple pages reverting changes and leveling personal attacks.
 * Followed me from [|Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy].
 * To stalking me when I was trying to report User:Scjessey for edit warring.Edit_warring#User:Scjessey_reported_by_User:Bongey_.28Result:_.29
 * Made multiple changes to the report section that had nothing to do with him/her.
 * To jumping to reverting my changes on the talk page, multiple times.Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy Talk Page
 * To writing on my talk page. []
 * I want him/her to leave me alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongey (talk • contribs) 04:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I won't waste time responding to the substance of these bizarre claims. The reporting editor is either a severely misguided newbie who has jumped into the encyclopedia in full WP:BATTLE mode, engaging in edit wars, getting blocked, and filing multiple nonsense administrative actions, all within their first few dozen edits — or an alternate account of somebody, or both. The repeated failure to sign comments or get basic wiki formatting suggests the former. The misuse of common Wikipedia process accusations like harassment, POV, edit war, personal attack, etc. suggests the latter. If an admin thinks some firm guidance can set this editor straight, please do, because if they don't adopt a collaborative approach or begin some constructive editing I do not see that they are long for the project. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment(uninvolved): The NOM account seems to be someone's sockpuppet which is used when they want to do some controversial editing that may land them in hot water. He comes alive once a year, makes the controversial edits and then goes stale for the next time when such services are required. My two cents on the issue as a bystander. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure a checkuser could figure it out, if they cared to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If this is really a sock puppet account wouldn't I use my other accounts to come to my defense? Instead multiple accounts out of the blue are using the same argument to attack me. Bongey (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reality I am a software developer who grew up in the Dell-wood, Berkeley and Ferguson Missouri area. I lived on Winkler Dr, St Louis, MO. The most recent wiki editing has been on systems that aren't connected to the internet.
 * All the edits are related to something I know about and went to look it up and some editor was high jacking the page.
 * My nickname has been bongey because I had really large physical head when I was a kid and it went "bong" when I hit it against something. Everyone in my family calls me by it.
 * Really wish wikipedia had a mod system, similar to slashdot.Bongey (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're a user with a POV-pushing agenda, and I'm surprised they haven't indef'd you yet. But they will eventually. And when they do, they should disable the underlying IP from editing. If you're not socking, no problem. If you are, it will effectively block your sockmaster also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Wars with Flyer22 Reborn
Flyer22 Reborn has unjustifiably deleted my edits on the basis that edits should only reflect community consensus instead of actual peer reviewed publications made by scientists/researchers. In other words, he/she wants to control information on Wikipedia and will not allow others to contribute actual scientific data. Help resolve this issue so I can edit instead of getting reverted by this troll.

These are the pages I have edit wars with:, ,

Need your administrator assistance ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doe1994 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks like a routine content dispute,, complicated by the other editor's accusations that you are a sockpuppet. Instead of denying that, you resorted to personal atttacks, calling the other editor a "bitch" and a "fucking troll". Your behavior has been far from exemplary. Please mend your ways. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved editor comment: the editor filing the complaint failed to follow the guideline above and notify user:Flyer22 Reborn, on her talk page, that this issue is being raised, instead pasting a broken link to the user page. I cannot speak for Flyer, but I seldom look at my user page unless editing it, so this user-page notice is insufficient to notify her that this issue has been raised here.  (Another user has placed a courtesy note on Flyer's talk page, so presumably she will make an appearance here to discuss the reverts in question.) <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 12px #ceff00, -4px -4px 12px #ceff00;">Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 05:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 User:Etamni Yeah, my bad I'm sorry I lost my temper and I'm sorry towards user:Flyer22 Reborn for calling her a "bitch". I am also a noob here so I don't have perfect knowledge how to notify people properly. However this issue is very critical because it shows there are some people like user:Flyer22 Reborn who is suppressing and restricting others from posting newer or relevant peer reviewed sources. As someone who is a regular follower of Peer reviewed journals, I find it unacademic that wikipedia allows individuals to restrict others from posting new official data. Flyer22's defence is that posts have to comply with community consensus which I find is irrational since that's not what the wikipedia rules says.The guidelines says you can post as long as the sources are valid. Community consensus should be frowned upon if peer reviewed sources outmatch any of their opinions. Doe1994 []
 * , the editor you are in a dispute with is not a troll by any definition of the term, and personal attacks will get you nowhere, except possibly blocked. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and railing against consensus is also unproductive. Not every peer-reviewed journal article is a good source, especially for any medical related article. We have a strong preference for review articles which analyze a large number of primary research articles. Please read and understand WP:MEDRS. In every Wikipedia article, editors working together are responsible for summarizing what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic, not battling to get their favorite peer-reviewed article included as a reference. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like there was a bit of aggression on both sides. I don't like editors who just revert edits "because a sock made them" without giving some other auxillary reason to back it up (eg: POV pushing, unsourced, BLP violations etc - I'm not saying you did this, these are just examples off the top of my head), and equally I don't like people who respond in kind. Reliable sources for medicine is not my thing, but from a quick look at the content, I would say that Cullen328 is correct in terms of content, and the sources you use don't look like highly respected medical journals. Start a discussion on Talk:Sex differences in psychology and stake your claim as to why the sources you use are suitable. Flyer22 is not out to get you, and when in a dispute, it is always best to put personal differences aside and focus only on content - it can be annoying at the best of times but it really is the only sane way to resolve things. tl;dr - Flyer22, don't revert for no reason (where have I heard that before?) based on content, Doe1994, don't dish out insults when you're angry. Are we done? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to point out that Flyer22 has an excellent record in regard to recognizing sockpuppets. In my experience, she is right far more often then she is wrong.  (In fact, I'm not sure I can think of any cases in which it was proven that she was wrong, just cases which have not yet come to fruition). BMK (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, no. If a sock made edits, and unless they're fixing vandalism or a BLP violation, I'm not expecting an auxiliary reason for a revert. Editors in good standing have enough to deal with without having to check the sock's edits for accuracy, NPOV, WP:V, etc. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 10:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see to be in the minority of admins who can hand on heart say that I don't give a flying toss who made an edit as long as it improves the encyclopedia, and we have the whole cause / effect thing back to front. Socks don't really get their edits reverted because they're socks, they get undone because the behaviour that caused the original block has not been fixed in the sock and they revert to type. If this is a genuine long-term problem, somebody will be able to direct me at an earlier ANI thread and say "aw jeez, not this again". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some editors tend to see someone agreeing with someone they either know or consider a sockpuppet and draw the conclusion "Yep, that's another one." Not saying Flyer22 did that, necessarily, nor am I taking the OP's word against her.  It's just something I've noticed in 12 years here, not a second of which was spent/wasted on sockpuppetry.  Other editors tend to be pretty sharp with new editors or even older editors who slip up.  It happens, and it's difficult to not react in kind, especially if the experienced editor in question has an itchy template finger - but I learned the hard way to not take an unjustified accusation, say, of editwarring personally.  I wound up apologizing for (unjustifably) jumping into ANI to complain about being template-bombed on my user talk page with accusations of editwarring which were technically true.
 * I agree with Ritchie that the quality of the edit matters more than intuition or detective work pointing to an editor being a sockpuppet. I was falsely accused of it once, confronted my accuser and demanded he retract the accusation or bring it to an admin. That editor couldn't be bothered to either apologize or take it to the next level with an admin (I'd have welcomed either). The excellent point Ritchie made was to make good edits, regardless of what people think you might be. To which I add, if you're not a sockpuppet, unfortunately, no one's going to apologize for making a mistake in your case.  Just consider what's in it for you here, and study the same stuff I haven't studied closely enough in 12 years of cleaning up content here.  I'm going to relearn what I ought to have down cold by now.  That's what you have to do. loupgarous (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that this user did not make helpful edits, he inserted poor quality material that was not suitable. It is also very inappropriate to say to another user "You're not a rad feminist or some troll are you?" as Doe1994 did at his talk page.  A very brief review of the evidence shows we have a problem user trying to bully another and I heartily recommend a WP:BOOMERANG.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Granted, and please read my closing statements, in which I acknowledged my inadequate wiki skill set, encouraged the OP to do as I am doing and revisit the instructionals and guidelines here in WP. Wikipedia's not a battleground WP:BATTLEGROUND and I have no interest in taking a side in this particular battle. Nothing's solved by meting out "justice" to those who don't get the guidelines yet.
 * The OP apologized for his behavior toward Flyer22, by the way. I'd say that showed an intention to mend his ways. I agree with your points, but WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL come into it, too.
 * Quoting from WP:AGF: "Everyone makes mistakes, both behavioral (such as personal attacks) and content-based (such as adding original research). Most of the time, we can correct such mistakes with simple reminders. However, there will be disagreements on Wikipedia for which no policy or guideline has an easy answer. When disagreements happen, ill intent may not be involved. Keep a cool head, and consider dispute resolution if disagreements seem intractable; many of them are not." Just throwing that out there. loupgarous (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In regards to whether or not someone is a sock, Flyer22Reborn accuses of almost everyone of being a sock and this, "I know who you really are but will let others figure it out on their own" thing of hers has gotta stop. She says that everywhere to everyone and, honestly, it's nothing more than a bullying tactic. She shouldn't be allowed to say that to people unless she knows for certain who they are and flat out states it. Either say what can be proven or don't make the accusation at all because it comes off as "I don't know anything but if I say this, it might scare you into going away because I want this page all to myself." These open-ended accusations of hers have long since grown stale (even with a rebirth).Cebr1979 (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey ho, . Let's tell the truth here, please, about her "accusing almost everyone of being a sock". I have interacted with her for several years, and she has never once accused me of being a sock. She has never accused any productive editor of being a sock. So, it seems that your definition of "almost everyone" is "all the disruptive, unproductive editors". That's because her attention is directed toward disruptive, unproductive editors. Show me a counterexample. You can't. So stop being disruptive, and all will be well. Repent, and improve the encyclopedia. Thank you in advance for your compliance. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  08:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Put the poms poms down, Cullen. Fine, let's change my "almost everyone" to "an awful lot of people" and... VOILA! The message is still true: In regards to whether or not someone is a sock, Flyer22Reborn accuses of an awful lot of people of being a sock and this, "I know who you really are but will let others figure it out on their own" thing of hers has gotta stop. She says that to an awful lot of people and, honestly, it's nothing more than a bullying tactic. She shouldn't be allowed to say that to people unless she knows for certain who they are and flat out states it. Either say what can be proven or don't make the accusation at all because it comes off as "I don't know anything but if I say this, it might scare you into going away because I want this page all to myself." These open-ended accusations of hers have long since grown stale (even with a rebirth).Cebr1979 (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have interacted with Flyer22 occassionally on talk pages in the past (before she was reborn) without any problems, but Talk:Rick Grimes was a bit perplexing to me at the time, especially since the "" part seemed to be really a bit of a reach. In hindsight, however, I realize her concerns were genuine and she was just basing them on her experiences in other similar situations. Moreover, she did apologize which is to her credit. Everyone has a bad hair day every now and then, and occassionally one's spider-sense goes on the fritz. I don't think commenting on another editor's behaviour (i.e., pointing out what you percieve to be a possible problem) is a bad thing as long as the discussion remains civil. So, if you're claiming there is a pattern of inappropriate behavior on her part, then I think you're going to have to be willing to provide more specifics (i.e., diffs) for others to see and assess. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Go to her talk page.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're going to need to be more specific than that. Nothing stands out at a glance. clpo13(talk) 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Kingdom of Commagene
I'm writing to request assistance regarding disruptive editing on the Kingdom of Commagene article by an anonymous editor (various IP addresses including 166.170.46.190). I've proposed discussing the point at issue on the talk page, to no avail, and proposed a compromise arrangement which I hoped would be satisfactory, also to no avail. See diffs:  The page was protected on November 2 for the same reason. (I'm the only other editor in the case—which is often the way in articles on ancient history—so I'm trying to be wary of not reverting too often.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the original poster. The original poster has tried to discuss with the IP, but the IP doesn't discuss.  The OP requested a third opinion, but I declined the request for third opinion because it should be preceded by discussion between two editors.  I recommended semi-protection, which was applied but has expired.  I had thought that semi-protection might get the IP to go to the talk page, but this appears to be a persistent silent IP.  A block and longer semi-protection may be in order.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Ihardlythinkso and User:Objective3000: Time for an IBAN?


These two users just plain can’t get along, and it’s gotten nasty.


 * Objective3000 has called Ihardlythinkso an "ass", a "troll" and told him to "get a life"
 * Ihardlythinkso has told Objective3000 to “soak your fucking head”, and has posted many comments on Objective3000’s talk page that Objective3000 wants to go away.

User:331dot and I have tried to talk them down, but they’ve dug in. Is it time for an interaction ban? p b  p  02:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was never "up". (So, you couldn't have "talked [me] down".) Please drop the presumptuousness. (Simply put, my principles are not consistent w/ current WP culture. So sue me, or block me, or ban me. What the fuck.) IHTS (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * First, as I have already explained, I did not tell IHTS to “get a life”. That was marked as a comment in an RfC aimed at the entire subject that had go on too far aimed at the discussion as a whole. Inarticulate perhaps, but I don’t see how anyone could have seen it as a personal attack. Since this, he has made 41 edits to my Talk Page and stated that he would be a permanent fixture there. I only responded to three. The rest I deleted demanding that he stop editing my Talk, to no avail. He continued editing my Talk after numerous demands that he stop. I asked for help from an admin. IHTS deleted my request for help. I was advised to take this to ANI. But, looking at his extensive block log, I didn’t want to take the time to get into a long battle with someone with so much experience with such. I simply want him to leave me alone. As for an IBAN, I would be delighted to never have to interact with him again. Indeed, I am not interacting with him on any page. I can only remember two interactions with him -- one of which where I defended him. He is constantly editing my Talk. My response is to demand he stop. I don’t think that’s what most IBAN complaints are about. I simply want him to stop editing my Talk Page. But, I do not want an IBAN on my perfect record. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No to iban, yes to editor's just stay off each other's talk pages. NE Ent 03:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because that's the only place in all of Wikipedia they interact, right? BMK (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. We have had extremely little interaction. He has made 41 edits to my Talk Page, all of which I deleted. I made two to his, but not responding to him. They were responses to Purplebackpack89 who had made inaccurate statements that I felt further damaged the situation. I remember a couple of interactions on one article Talk. In one of those, I defended him. I just want him to stop editing my Talk Page, as is my right. Objective3000 (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Objective3000: If you haven't done so already, go to IHTS's talk page and post a comment that says "Unless you are required to by Wilkipedia policy, please do not post on my talk page again." Then, avoid posting anything on his talk page as well.  If IHTS doesn't follow your request, cite your request and IHTS's violating comment to your favorite admin, and they will warn IHTS.  If they IHTS does it again, let the admin know, and (eventually) a block will be made.  In the meantime, just delete the comments without reading them, it'll make you feel better. BMK (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , so how does that not give free license to the editor, to make any false & derogatory/slanderous accusations and discussion about an editor to their heart's conent, on their Talk page? Did it occur to you that WP:PA policy recommends addressing complaints re PA comments also at the user's Talk? So how does forbidding that thru your recommendation, square with policy?! (Perhaps things aren't as simple/easy/straight-forward as you like to think or want or project!? [Please don't give answer that circumvents my Q, such as "Take it to ANI". Thx.]) IHTS (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of WikiSpeak. NE Ent 03:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL. BMK (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hah. Great link. Only, I am not arguing with him. I am not talking to him at all. Look guys, if you rule that we should stop posting to each other's talk pages, that would absolutely delight me. That's all I have been asked for, for days. I want him to stop editing my talk page. I have no interest in editing his. Objective3000 (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the "get a life" comment wasn't on a user's talk page. And, claiming the "get a life" comment was aimed at many editors rather than a single one doesn't really make it any better of an edit.  And if you're worried about your "perfect record" so much, you shouldn't be calling other users asses, trolls and telling them to get lives.  Though I would point out that IBAN's don't show up in your block log.  p  b  p  03:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * pbp, do not take this as a personal attack, but you have made several misstatements that appear to have been based on a sketchy review of the situation and belief of comments from another individual. I don't want to get into a long discussion as I don't think it is warranted. I just don't think this has been helpful. Having said that, I know your intent was to be useful, assume good faith, and thank you for your participation. In the end, bringing it up here may work out for the best. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hah. Just remembered that I asked you to bring it here.:) Objective3000 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for misstating earlier in this discussion that you were heavily involved in the image debate.  p  b  p  03:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. All's well that end's well. Objective3000 (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes please, let's have more iBans! Look, an "ass" here and a "fuck off" there, I'm sure we have heard worse in real life. If this happens mostly on user talk space, meh. The above solution looks fine to me--ask someone to stop posting. If it happens in article or project talk space, it can get disruptive, and it can be handled through the usual channels: each insulted party sends a message to their favorite admin. Or, if it gets real bad, it may be time for a civility block. I would like to add that I'm considering running for ArbCom and for the Board of Trustees and for the corner office nextdoor from Jimmy Wales, and when that happens I will make NE Ent the Special Administrative Enforcer of Interaction Bans, the appropriate acronym for which is SUCKER, one way or another. Drmies (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Being accused of making "sexist insult" (in editsum on Talk:Donald Trump ) is where I started strongly complaining at the user's Talk - not from his "Get a life", "ass", "troll", etc.). I don't believe I've ever made a "sexist" remark or insult of any kind to anyone at any time in my life, nor would I. But no one gives a shit if someone is so slandered on the public WP, right!? The offending editor asserts that I've spoken harshly to him without cause. Anyone might want to look at the baits and relevant timestamps before swallowing that one. Meantime, this ANI was not a good idea for anyone. IHTS (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would come with an olive branch, but there's nothing left to deescalate here; IHTS, what you've just removed shouldn't make you wonder hy 'nobody loves you'. You said yourself there what many of us possibly really do think about you. You are however alone responsible for your reputation and long block log, well noted blocked by better admins than me. Give it time, you'll be indeffed and perma-baned soon enough and you'll be able to take your chess skills somewhere else on the Internet where you'll be more appreciated. Not to mention the wierd polemic you so passionately maintain on your user page. Closing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record: I do not believe that what removed in this edit was a "sexist insult" on 's part. Using the word "bitching" does, of course, trivialize the words marked as such, and there are those who argue that it also trivializes women. I need to ponder this some more and I may end up not using the word myself anymore (I'm not sure if I use it frequently or at all). But I do not think that "bitching" is at present widely considered to be sexist. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest Albert XXXXX sock
Could somebody please block the latest Albert sock - User:Albert20100 - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC) ⋅ ✅ --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat made by IP
See this diff. IP has been notified of this ANI thread.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Harassment and threats from Ulla1956


This user has been warned twice against harassment and legal threats.,  Ulla1956 earlier left this message on 's page because he posted a valid COI warning concerning an article she has a clear COI on.   She left this message on his page that I think crosses the line.  —Мандичка YO 😜 13:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruptive edits by User:Malaylampur
From the day that was created, he/she has done nothing but reverting edits and attacking other editors (ok I admit: minus 2 edits in creating his/her User and User-talk pages). Malaylampur seems to hold a particular grudge against :, and the latest 10-ish "contributions". MezzoMezzo has warned Malaylampur about this almost single-purpose behaviour (not in the most gentle manner, but the message seems clear), to which Malaylampur responded unregrettably. And then there is this little "threat" addressed to me.

Additionally, none of the article namespace edits have been constructive, sometimes (bordering?) edit warring:, , , , and. - HyperGaruda (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Another concern would be that this editor is apparently demanding people only message them on weekdays [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malaylampur&diff=prev&oldid=687088271]. There's nothing wrong of course with an editor only responding on weekdays (or whenever) but it's always going to be difficult to collobrate when an editor demands from all editors certain things for communicating with them, or else they'll simply delete your message. This in particular seems to place an unresonable burden on others, requiring them to save their message elsewhere in the meantime and remember to post them. If that's even possible, as it's a condition impossible to fulfill for anyone who's only able to contribute on the weekend. Plus depending on how fussy Malaylampur is, they need to work out what a weekday is for Malaylampur. Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The two people are removing sourced material with bogus edit summaries, HyperGaruda leaps over onto my edits and begins to attack my contributions. Hypergaruda conveniently leaves out the fact that I was called a troll. These two associates have an agenda to remove things they dont like by following my edits and using bully tactics. Can someone take a look at Hypers last edit He wants to refer to another talk page discussion to automatically make his edits final across the whole platform. Can someone explain to him and the other guy that what they say is not final? There is something called consensus and my reversions prove there is no consensus to remove what was on that page for months before i arrived. I had a tight schedule it is why I ask that its weekdays only Malaylampur (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * my reversions prove there is no consensus Ahem, *points to WP:DRNC*. Both MezzoMezzo and I have provided arguments for our edits, either on talk pages or in edit summaries. Malaylampur on the other hand has either given none, or only WP:IDL arguments. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your arguments like the one I pointed to above are invalid. you like to edit war and help out your associate. Saying refer to such and such and reverting is not valid at all. Go to the relevant talk page and provide valid reasons why you are reverting SOURCED content that was there before I arrived. Malaylampur (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My "valid reasons" for reverting "sourced" content were given on this talk page, which dealt with exactly the same issue. Linking to that made it possible to keep the edit summary concise. Now, will you please tell us why all my arguments are invalid? - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You cant refer to another page to make your edits final. The edits you removed have nothing to do with the template. Malaylampur (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What sort of WP:BURO-based argument is that someone "can't" give a reason for their edits that's provided on a different talk page? Does the edit summary point to a valid reason? Yes? Then that's good enough. (Of course, the best place to discuss something related to an article is its talk page, but sometimes debates just become cross-article, and arbitrarily restricting where you can give rationales for changes makes no sense.) LjL (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I already said, there's nothing wrong with you only being able to work on wikipedia on weekdays, and so no one is likely to come up with a resonable complaint if you only edit wikipedia on weekdays. What is unresonable is for you to demand people only message you on weekdays and delete and ignore their messages if they are not posted on weekdays for you. You need to learn to deal with messages which aren't left on weekdays or otherwise don't fit in to your schedule. I would suggest ignoring them until you have time to deal with them rather than deleting them because they don't fit your schedule. Now you can delete them if you want (since you nearly always can with stuff on your talk page), but you still have to read them, and respond if necessary, as and when your schedule allows it. And do this without silly complaints about people leaving messages not following your schedule. This does assume you likewise restrict your editing. It's not resonable for you to ignore all messages if you're going to continue to edit since people may need to message you and you may need to read these messages before you continue editing. In other words, if your schedule doesn't allow communication, given this is a collobrative encyclopaedia it's most likely that your schedule doesn't allow editing. Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir topic ban for 65.88.88.173 (or .*)
An IP user of the New York Public Library's computer system, from a number of IP addresses in the 65.88.88.* range, has for years been making the same POV changes to article on the topic of Kashmir, and sprinkling talk pages with the same endless rants. He's been blocked for it in the past. Most recently, this has taken the form of User:65.88.88.173 making the same change to Kashmiris that no one else seems to agree with. His changes keep getting reverted. He also keeps adding exclamations about this to Talk:Kashmiris, each time at the top of the page or some other arbitrary location on it, never at the bottom.

He has one ancient source that he thinks supports him, and one editor did acknowledge that there's some controversy, but that's as far as he's gotten to getting corroboration for his viewpoint.

The fact that he frequently insists that Jews (who evidently spend all their time thinking about Kashmiris) want Kashmiris to be thought of by the world as Semitic kind of puts him over the top when it comes to an assessment of his rationales for his views.

I finally got tired of moving and then addressing the same contributions to Talk:Kashmiris. On the most recent occasion, just now, I undid his misplaced contribution as disruptive editing, and left a warning to that effect at User talk:65.88.88.173.

After all these years, I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be reasonable to impose a topic ban on that IP address, and possibly all the addresses in the same block, or at least all the ones that have been involved in Kashmir activity in the past. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov's POV-pushing and battleground behavior
The account Alexis Ivanov appears to be an single purpose account with the sole objective of pushing a Muslim point of view. Across numerous articles, the account engages in apparent vandalism by removing sourced content with no explanation, for example removing a sourced sentence about a massacre, or repeatedly deleting references to Muhammad accepting slavery , , edit warring to claim a region was [Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] , , , , edit warring to keep in positive opinions about Ali despite these being tagged for 1½ year , ,. In addition to all of this POV-pushing across the board, efforts to discuss with the user on article talk pages just result in personal attacks ("You need to stop lying through your teeth and "You need to stop lying" ) in return. In short As the user is not here to contribute, just to push their POV, I propose either an indef block or a topic ban for articles related to Islam and Muslim history. Jeppiz (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The first three edits/diffs are against policy. But: The edit on Cossack Hetmanate is backed up by two cites including a JSTOR article which can be checked. On Non-Muslim view of Ali, you are the one at fault, for gutting and article rather than doing what the tag said: "Please help improve the article by editing it to take facts from excessively quoted material and rewrite them as sourced original prose." Unless you're going to do that, leave the quotes as they are rather than gutting the article. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I respect your opinion (and you're welcome to talk part in the discussion I started at talk:Non-Muslim view of Ali but it's not about the content issue. Jeppiz (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, you must notify a user when you file an ANI case about them, and you haven't done this. You must do so, and you can use the template at the top of this page. You haven't provided any evidence that the editor is a SPA or is only here to push a Muslim POV. You have provided evidence that he has added sourced material and has replaced sourced material. You have also provided (only) three instances where he deleted valid sourced material, but you have also provided three instances of where you deleted valid sourced material. So I'd say it's a draw, and there is no case here. Softlavender (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC); edited 23:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Softlavender, I notified the user one minute after posting this discussion, so your accusation against me is entirely false. The diffs I posted clearly show the use deleting, not replacing as you claim , , . Yes, I removed material that had been tagged, I explained why in the edit summary and in the discussion. As for providing evidence that a user is a SPA, I showed that virtually all edits are in one single area. How else do you show a user is a SPA? Jeppiz (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I missed seeing your notification; I've striken that. The rest of my point stands, and there is no case here. You provided seven diffs of the user adding or replacing sourced material. The material you mass deleted (83% of the article) three times was not "tagged". There was a tag at the top of the article that suggested converting the material into prose, which you did not do. As far as showing the user is an SPA, he has made 550+ edits to 150+ articles. You have shown exactly three problem edits by him and three problem edits by you. There's no case here. Softlavender (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Three times"? I removed it two times from the article (and explained why), after which I've tried to engage both Alexis Ivanov and you in a discussion. Alexis's answer was "You need to stop lying through your teeth (something you apparently didn't have a problem with), your answer was to give me your permission to edit Wikipedia . Neither of you have bothered to even discuss the undue issue. So that's falsely accusing me of not notifying Alexis, falsely accusing me of deleting material three times from the article I did remove similar material once from another article and refusing to discuss. Not a great display of admin intervention. Jeppiz (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected -- You gutted the article twice, and someone else did it in between. I'm not an admin. The three restorations were correct per WP:BRD. I have already discussed your claims of UNDUE on that talk page. If your only valid claims against the user are three deletions, and two talk-page posts which contain the word "lying", I'm afraid there's still nothing really actionable here; all of the article issues have been cleared up and if you want any changes to the Non-Muslim views of Ali article you are free to add to it or change the quotations to prose but not to gut the article without consensus. Softlavender (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC) ETA: If someone appears uncivil or uses words like "lying", it's best to ignore that and focus only on content and policy. Often editors who are upset use less than civil language; confronting them about it generally only increases their upsetness. So it's best to work collaboratively with all editors, even those with whom you disagree, and focus solely on article content and Wikipedia policy, avoiding using the word "you" or specifically referring to the other editor. Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * After the exchange above, I realize I may have expressed it badly. The problem, in my opinion, is that the user does not seem to care for policies, gladly removing sourced content or deleting tags across several articles, and I gave some examples; I should point out I have not been involved in most of those exchanges. The user has been warned for this repeatedly but to no effect. While it's true I removed duplicated material twice from an article today, I also explained why and started a discussion about it. I don't really think it's the same as repeatedly removing material from several articles, deleting tags, and only discuss in terms of personal attacks. Jeppiz (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Again this guy is lying again and again to push his won views and REMOVE a huge portions of the article, I never pushed any POV content, why you lying again through your dirty teeths, stop putting out again and again, the Cossack article was provided with SOURCES, the Muhamamd Slavery edit was taken after a user complained in the talk page and was backed sources from the same place the sources were taken and the issue was resolved at a user's talk page with no edit war. Your filthy attitude in Wikipedia is not welcomed and your failed attempt at bureacrcy and your petty blocking warning, not only are you willing to remove huge portions of the Ali's page you are willing to sneak up at me and stab with a knife at my back and undo all my edits in various articles, which as you know I will undo them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Ivanov (talk • contribs) 00:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)  Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Alexis Ivanov sums up the problem. Calling me "scum" and accusing me of lying once for the third time today, as well as removing the same sourced content for the third time (I only restored it once) , and promising to continue in the same way. Does anyone seriously believe the user is here to build an encyclopaedia? Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And on it goes . The fourth time the user refuses to discuss, just lashes out at me (and others) for disagreeing. We've really tried to discuss, but all we get are vile personal attacks in return, over and over again. Jeppiz (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem in my opinion is a user like you deleting huge portions of articles, because it doesn't meet his 50% positive and 50% negative quote and accused of undue weight and cherry picking without bring any evidence, it seems you are talking out of your ass and then you claim you are doing this and following policy? >gladly removing sourced content or deleting tags across several articles, and I gave some examples >I should point out I have not been involved in most of those exchanges. But you are involving yourself right now and not only that you are willing to lie about me and accuse Muslim POV, those non-Muslim scholars that I backed up in the Cossack article that you lied through your teeth must be pushing Muslim POV, what an embarrassment >The user has been warned for this repeatedly but to no effect. Those articles have reached a resolution, what warnings you are talking about, please go be a creep and dig deep as much as you want >While it's true I removed duplicated material twice from an article today, I also explained why and started a discussion about Only after you removed a huge portions of it and now you acting like a good boy, pathetic lies, why not start discussion FIRST, especially when you try and remove a whole page and now you are aiming to delete a page that discusses what is suppose to discuss.Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >The problem, in my opinion, is that the user does not seem to care for policies
 * So that's four accounts of calling me a lier, one of being a creep, one of being pathetic, one of talking out of of my ass. In just one comment. And that's the response I've got on every talk page when I've tried to address the articles with this user. Jeppiz (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes because you are lying when I see liers like you I point them out. >as well as removing the same sourced content for the third time (I only restored it once) Again you are lying, I removed and EDITED and ADDED content, can you please stop lying to push your own POV content >Does anyone seriously believe the user is here to build an encyclopaedia? Yes let's ask someone like you who is ready to delete articles and remove huge portions ? My record is out there in how I built Wikipedia and add content, you can always cherry pick what you want and accuse people of cherry picking Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >Calling me "scum" and accusing me of lying once for the third time today


 * Calling editors "scum" and accusing them of lying is unacceptable. Please stop that. Dr.   K.  01:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will refrain from using that word Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Alexis. I appreciate your efforts. Best regards. Dr.   K.  01:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Alexis Ivanov's promise to Dr.K. of refraining from such persona attacks did not hold even two hours, I'm afraid. Jeppiz (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Where was the personal attack, when I see lies I say the way it is. or do you want me to back of and say you are telling the truth. I refrained from personall attacks like SCUM, Son of a B and many more, Dr.K recommended me to refrain from such things and I'm doing it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Those wouldn't even just be personal attacks, those would be personal attacks and vulgar insults. You certainly should refrain from that sort of name-calling. It's not just a matter of using specific words, though: "attacking" doesn't just mean "insulting", and accusing an editor of lying deliberately (nevermind "through their teeth" or with "pathetic" lies) could certainly be seen as an attack. I, for one, am not getting a good impression of your attitude from what you've said here. Make of that what you will. LjL (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

And that is why I refraining from them. >(nevermind "through their teeth" or with "pathetic" lies) That is exactly why I refrained them. I don't want to hurt his feeling. >I, for one, am not getting a good impression of your attitude from what you've said here. How can I earn my good boy points back? I don't want you to get angry at me. >Make of that what you will YES SIR!! Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >Those wouldn't even just be personal attacks, those would be personal attacks and vulgar insults.

While I was not involved in the above dispute involving Jeppiz, I and several other editors had a similar dispute with Alexis Ivanov last month, here, which illustrates that this is a pattern of behavior. The user similarly engaged in personal attacks against every other editor who contributed to the discussion. He, in fact, displays utter contempt for all others, with an aggressively WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Mind you, this was all over an image that merely required some adjustment to fit properly in a section. Alexis Ivanov wanted the image to be removed, noting that it overlapped into the following section, and due to its content. Consensus was clearly for retaining the image, and the overlap was fixed with a minor adjustment. Yet his vitriol toward other editors was appalling. This is disruptive editing that discourages valuable editors from participating, and utterly against the collaborative objective of WP. Laszlo Panaflex (talk)

Well it's not the same dispute so you don't have to lie about it. > Mind you, this was all over an image that merely required some adjustment to fit properly in a section. What can I say I'm passionate about the Ottoman Empire. >Consensus was clearly for retaining the image, and the overlap was fixed with a minor adjustment It was fixed because we reached a resolution. >Yet his vitriol toward other editors was appalling Did you expect me to give a kiss? >This is disruptive editing that discourages valuable editors from participating, and utterly against the collaborative objective of WP. Well you can stop beating the dead horse anytime you want. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC) How is it contemptuous? >Alexis Ivanov has also placed a message on my talk page I want to know if there is a problem you have with me that is personal, can't a man ask a question as well as reverting a edit I made yesterday removing unsourced gibberish from an unrelated article You didn't bring your case to the talk page to remove a source content, you simply cut it out. Now you are crying foul?? As stated above, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. I'm here to build wikipedia, and my record speaks clearly. I have contributed to my fair share and won't have the likes of you, discarding it, your only excuse is the Ottoman article and now you are here to throw your low jabs, looking for your opportunity Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >While I was not involved in the above dispute involving Jeppiz
 * Along with this contemptuous response, Alexis Ivanov has also placed a message on my talk page, as well as reverting a edit I made yesterday removing unsourced gibberish from an unrelated article. As stated above, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >Along with this contemptuous response
 * And now Alexis Ivanov is edit warring over an incoherent edit that I removed. As I explained in edit summaries (1, 2), the addition is incoherent, ungrammatical, improperly placed in the intro, and unclearly sourced.  Alexis Ivanov re-added the passage without explanation, then reverted and demanded I discuss on the talk page, when my reasons for removal were clearly stated.  He offers no defense of the passage, simply re-adding as retaliation for my comment here. This is in no way constructive, and again illustrates his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not an edit war, why you are going to assume bad faith, I'm trying to collaborate and discuss your problem with the name, or am I know allowed to edit your pages? let's discuss this as Wikipedia editors in the talk page, we can fix this article me and you. As I explained in edit summaries (1, 2), the addition is incoherent, ungrammatical, improperly placed in the intro, and unclearly sourced. Can you explain more in the talk page? and demanded I discuss on the talk page It's not a demand, it's being collaborative enviroment where we can discuss in the talk page why you want to remove the material and searching for better quality statements if you want to re-modify the statement. when my reasons for removal were clearly stated. You need to explain your reasons in depth in the talk page and I have started a new section in the talk page to talk with you. He offers no defense of the passage I did all you have to is clean the tears from your eye and stop crying and whining in here and go to the talk page, as I have explained Procopius of Caesareamentions the word Moors in his books. That goes back to the 6th century C.E. simply re-adding as retaliation for my comment here. There is no retaliation, please assume good faith. This is in no way constructive, and again illustrates his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. There is no battleground attitude, it's a dispute resolution attitude and reaching a consensus and understanding. All you are doing is assuming bad faith Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >And now Alexis Ivanov is edit warring over an incoherent edit that I removed.

The reported user has aggressive behavior and battleground mentality. He abuses edit summaries and talk pages, , , , , , .--61.197.140.93 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment As the user continues to edit war, and violating 3RR, just as they continue with their repeated personal attacks at several others users (I count at least 20 recent WP:NPA violations, I've reported the edit warring . Jeppiz (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The user was blocked by Bishonen for 31 hours, the first edit when back was to continue arguing with Lazlo, again violating WP:NPA immediately after the block. Jeppiz (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The first, second, third and fourth and many more numbers (until FIFTEEN) edits I did was my page, you are having this vendetta against me, and you are too eager to spread misinformation about me and push your own views while coming from the back and saying all these false things about me, while never putting yourself to follow the rules you seem to uphold the first edit when back was to continue arguing with Lazlo, again violating WP:NPA immediately after the block. I didn't violate any WP:NPA, you can go and read it yourself once you try your best to be non-biased and see there was no single instance of personal attack on the page? I had to start my own investigation to understand if he had a personal problem with me in his own talk page and I committed any wrongdoings while I was discussing with him, you are too quick to reach hasty conclusion about me, I would refrain from such tactics. That puts you on the negative spotlight. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Are you saying I should LIE and tell him he was being honest? These are not mere accusation these were statements on how I felt before and I quote "It's also equally difficult when people lie to me and accuse me of wrongdoings" >Smart people learn from the outcomes of their past behavioral patterns And I did what evidence do you have I didn't, I followed all the rules laid out in the Wikipedia guidelines once my blocking was expired? COME ONAlexis Ivanov (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC) There was no attack directed at Laszlo SO PLEASE STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION >also accused another user of lying . That was no an accusation that was a fact, when Iryna accuses me of provided Ottoman spin on Historical articles, you make sure your don't talk, but when I reply providing my evidence you scream and attack me? Yes I assume I should let people lie about me and my character and my contribution to Wikipedia in the historical articles. >the user does not seem to learn regardless of warnings and blocks. Getting blocked doesn't mean that you should stop and spread your butt cheeks so others can violate you! It means you should follow the Wikipedia guidelines as per stated in the Wikipedia policies and guidelines pages and I did to the 100% fullest of my effort, I just got couple guys like you on my back all the time, quick to be pedantic and equate showing the way people lie about you as personal attack. So what other political correct word should I use instead of the word Lie which is being pushed by the sensitivities of Jeppiz? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >the first edit when back was to continue arguing with Lazlo
 * I can read it for myself, yes: you accuse him of lying. You were previously told not to do that. Then you were blocked. Smart people learn from the outcomes of their past behavioral patterns. LjL (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >you accuse him of lying.
 * In addition to the attack directed at Laszlo Panaflex, Alexis Ivanov also accused another user of lying . So that's two cases of accusations of lying/dishonesty from a user barely back a few hours from a block that was partly the result of frequent accusations of "lying" directed at several users. As LjL says, the user does not seem to learn regardless of warnings and blocks. Jeppiz (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >In addition to the attack directed at Laszlo Panaflex 
 * Perhaps you should not comment on others at all. If you don't know the difference between discussing and insulting, better play it safe and avoid it. Any time you want to comment on another user, ask yourself if it's necessary. Jeppiz (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't spread misinformation about me, You and others. I hope those words are politically correct I;m using, I want to be as sensitive to you as possible 100% and respect your mental health and well-being as a human being who founds every word I say a personal attack. >If you don't know the difference between discussing and insulting I know the difference it's not my fault that you have vendetta against me and write biased statements and spread misinformation about me. Surely a high level and well-respected person like you would understand, from my point of view. Or not. >better play it safe and avoid it. I don't play at all. >Any time you want to comment on another user, ask yourself if it's necessary. And I did, again your view of the world is not the center of the universe, you have a personal problem with me and eager to expand on it to block me or ban me. All this because you disagree how to handle with the Ali page and you dare accuse me and then stalk around me. I know your personal policy is if someone is spreading misinformation just let them do it Unless your name is Jeppiz then you are allowed to break all rules Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >Perhaps you should not comment on others at all
 * I'll leave this discussion for now, I think the issue is quite clear. Jeppiz (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's extremely clear, all you have to do was follow the Wikipedia Civility guidelines and we would have a better Ali article, instead of a firestorm. and again I hope my words are not a personal attack, and that I'm sensitive towards your well being. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies to Laszlo Panaflex and Jeppiz for taking so long to join in on the discussion regarding this user's relentless and aggressive, WP:BATTLE behaviour. I'm feeling a little tired out by combative, POV new editors of late and thought it merely a matter of time before WP:ROPE kicked in. This new editor is WP:NOTHERE, simply cherry picking his/her way through articles having found some sort of evidence that everything in history revolves around being attached to the Ottoman Empire. S/He has even only just left a pre-emptive strike on my own talk page (here) after I'd tried to ignore a barrage of attacks including ethnic slurs and, well, pretty much everything you can hurl at another editor starting from here to here, here, here, and.

I'd responded to the very first missive asking that it be taken to the talk page of the article in question (my response). Alexis Ivanov has no interest in engaging with issues surrounding what is DUE or UNDUE in an infobox (please see the Cossack Hetmanate article's talk page here and here). It is simply impossible to engage with someone who doesn't want to WP:LISTEN when one tries to explain policies and guidelines. Resultantly, I'm trying to get on with other work on Wikipedia and leaving the article covering the 'Rus State 1649–1764' - with huge, undue allusions to Protectorate Status under the Ottoman Empire sitting directly under the name of the state. It's going to have to wait because I truly don't want to have to deal with another editor of this character again for a few days at least. Anyone who knows the first thing about the Zaporizhian Host would laugh at the irony, but I'm not going to go into details as to how ridiculously misleading this is as it's not a content dispute. Plainly put, I don't think this user has the WP:COMPETENCE to edit here full stop. Someone who can't get past "I would like to move forward and improve this article and continue reading about the Cossack and Ottomans. Unless you want to threaten me again" and "I don't have the rest since my focus is only between Ottoman Empire and the Cossack Hetmante, I have no interest in other countries, I was reading about their relationship specifically which intrigued me." is not interested in 'getting' how Wikipedia works. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I know y'all like hating on new people, but I ain't new, been here since June, but as usual discirmination against new comers is allowed, while patting on the the back for the veterans is encouraged. >This new editor is WP:NOTHERE, simply cherry picking his/her way through articles having found some sort of evidence that everything in history revolves around being attached to the Ottoman Empire. Again with the misinformation, didn't we talk about and settled it. Please stop from spreading MISINFORMATION about me, you never took the time, to see all the edits I have done since coming here and quick to give a pro-Ukranian twist. Where was the cherry picking??? Giving specific dates of the vassalage? after relentless source checking and finding?? Not only that I got you 3 different sources????? and you still angry that Bogdan asked to be the slave of the Ottoman Sultan???? The only thing you want here is for Bogdan to come out from his grave and confirm his historical actions this is simply WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT >S/He has even only just left a pre-emptive strike on my own talk page (here) I'm pretty sure I'm a male, but you can accuse me of being a female all you like. Secondly there was no pre-emptive strike, I asked you to stop spreading MISINFORMATION about me, and accusing me of giving "a slanted Ottoman Empire spin" which is a HUGE MISINFORMATION, with your logic if I read about the Mongol Empire and edit the Kiev page on the date of the battles they lost, I must be giving "a slanted Mongol Empire spin", anyone who isn't pro-Ukranian must be against you, I don't abide by these false dichotomy claims you write about me. >pretty much everything you can hurl at another editor starting from here to here, here, here, and . Please for the love of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, stop playing the victim, PLEEEEEEEEEASE. This victim mentality that you are playing is not working. >I'd responded to the very first missive asking that it be taken to the talk page of the article in question (my response). And what did I do, I packed my good boy bag and went to work, followed the guidelines, assumed good faith edit from you and fixed the refrences, since you were right my refrecnes was bad I refrences the whole JOURNAL, I picked the article, the pages, the author, and the whole date, issue and volume, so PLEASE STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION about me >Alexis Ivanov has no interest in engaging with issues surrounding what is DUE or UNDUE in an infobox (please see the Cossack Hetmanate article's talk page here and here). Why are you spreading misinformation again????? >It is simply impossible to engage with someone who doesn't want to WP:LISTEN when one tries to explain policies and guidelines. FROM DAY ONE I showed respect to you, and you showed me no respect and disrespected, even after following the rules you laid out you still disresepct? and now you are playing the victim, Have you ever asked yourself why User:Faustian, never disrespected me and why I never disrespect me, because I followed the GOLDEN RULE. Me and him/her had a discussion and it went well, but you are too eager to show disrespect upon other users at the same TIME, SPREADING MISINFORMATION that will fuel further problems, instead of bringing people together, you can learn a lot more from User:Faustian, one of the best Wikipedia editors out there. >Resultantly, I'm trying to get on with other work on Wikipedia and leaving the article covering the 'Rus State 1649–1764' - with huge, undue allusions to Protectorate Status under the Ottoman Empire sitting directly under the name of the state There is nothing UNDUE, except the fact that you don't like the article, and you are willing to censor history and accuse others being pro-Ottoman, just because you read [insert time/state] doesn't make you pro or anti of any [insert time/state]. >It's going to have to wait because I truly don't want to have to deal with another editor of this character again for a few days at least. Or you know we can have a civilized discussion and show me some respect and I will show you some respect. Again please stop spreading misinformation and playing the victim here >Anyone who knows the first thing about the Zaporizhian Host would laugh at the irony You mean anyone who knows how to be a pro-Ukranian biased Zaporizhian Host would understand and laugh?? Of course they would, you know all these qualified historian who I backed up are pro-Ottoman BAD PEOPLE who know nothing. >but I'm not going to go into details as to how ridiculously misleading this is as it's not a content dispute. Well we can fix the article in it's own talk page and talk about it. >Plainly put, I don't think this user has the WP:COMPETENCE to edit here full stop. That is actually a good tactic, disagree me with on the Cossack page and suddenly I;m the devil, by removing you can remove the edits and so on, GENIUS and push your own biased opinion, you know what I think this is a good tactic, when the article had the Russian vassal;age there was no single peep from you at all, make sure your slavic neighbor get's a free point not only that it was no citation, WOW, and when I came here after reading a book, to add the references, you rain down on me and showed the most disrespect a person can show to others, well I became patient the same way Bogdan did and followed WP rule to fix the article and still you are here showing no single aspect of respect and willing to disrupt wikipedia >Someone who can't get past "I would like to move forward and improve this article and continue reading about the Cossack and Ottomans. Unless you want to threaten me again" what is wrong with those words, as I said I wanted to move forwards and I gave you my hand, a hand of friendship and after you slapped my hand you are quick to become the victim?? >"I don't have the rest since my focus is only between Ottoman Empire and the Cossack Hetmante, I have no interest in other countries, I was reading about their relationship specifically which intrigued me." is not interested in 'getting' how Wikipedia works. You are misrepresenting my words. Just because you don't know about the Han Dynasty doesn't mean you can't edit the pages. if you see a mistake, this was the example I was using, I have gained some knwoeldge of the Cossacks and Ottomans dealing, the focus is between the two and their relationship, and I came here to modify the article. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >I'm feeling a little tired out by combative, POV new editors of late and thought it merely a matter of time before WP:ROPE kicked in.


 * Block Already the users first edits show a detailed knowledge of user talk and sandbox pages, indicating a returned editor, and his first mainspace edit diff is the vandalism of a real reference. Any admin that spends 30 seconds looking at this should block this sock indefinitely. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. The first edit in that sequence is very revealing. Remarkably proficient for a virtual newbie. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, NOPE >The first edit in that sequence is very revealing. It reveals how bad I was, I actually botched the references, since I was getting used to the visual editor. I also forgot to mention I used to edit for a Naruto wiki PAGE before venturing in this Wikipedia I just remembered now and I can provide evidence by commenting on my naturo user name from the Naruto Wiki, I have some basic Wikipedia skills. >Remarkably proficient for a virtual newbie. Those non english Wiki edits are actually new and was part of my outreach to understand what was the difference and how they view things, I think Russian Wikipedia is the most interesting, I also am not a virtual newbie since I was part of the Naruto Wiki page. from December 2014 till January 2015 and here is my user name and contribution, hopefully you see this. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >Ah, yes.

WRONG, I played around the talk page and sandbox area and I still have some sandboxed, my Wikipedia knowledge was very low, I played that Wikipedia adventure game only 2 missions I believe and then started playing around, before going to edit articles, I still use the sandboxes because it gives me idea how Wikipedia operates like in the references and templates, I also followed the Wikipedia cheatsheet. So please stop spreading misinformation about me. >indicating a returned editor, and his first mainspace edit diff is the vandalism of a real reference. You are accusing me of things I have never done, I don't have or done any socket puppet thingy ever, and my first edit came after reading about about an article about Hongwu Emperor and I was checking about his birth and I fixed the wikipedia article, you can thank me later and updated the references by providing it from the Cambridge history China. >Any admin that spends 30 seconds looking at this should block this sock indefinitely Anyone with a piece of brain that goes back to my user page and talk page and the sandboxes will see how innocent I am in the regard of my first edit, you are accusing me of things I HAVE NEVER DONE and implying I have socket or a returned user???? I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Also here is the third page I ever created after my first and second pages which were the user and talk, editing a sandbox wasn't that hard, I learned after finding about sandboxes by some users (User:Example/Sandbox) BEFORE creating that page and the only thing I did was type the Hongwu Emperor next to my name, it wasn't rocket science. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't Block >the users first edits show a detailed knowledge of user talk and sandbox pages
 * Not rocket science... Perhaps you can explain why it is so difficult for you to read and understand policies, guidelines and questions posted regarding your edits on article talk pages... Or why, after being asked to be civil my numerous editors, you persist in harassing editors claiming that you are the one being bullied. If you have the intelligence to work out how to do thing that you want to do (from creating templates to anything else that appeals to your interests) why do you appear to have such difficulty in learning the basic principles of editing Wikipedia? It seems that you're WP:NOTHERE for anything other than what you want to push, nor do you feel any sense of embarrassment or remorse for being appallingly abusive to anyone who dares to question the quality of your input. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As in not rocket science in editing WIKIPEDIA as I have been editing the prior year in NarutoPedia. >Perhaps you can explain why it is so difficult for you to read and understand policies, guidelines and questions posted regarding your edits on article talk pages I try to educate myself at the best of my ability and I showed you when I changed the reference in the Cossack page. But it doesn't matter even if I do everything in the world, you would find ways to disrespect me and show no regard, and then you come here asking WHY? >Or why, after being asked to be civil my numerous editors, you persist in harassing editors claiming that you are the one being bullied. And afterwards I was blocked and learned from my mistakes. Where was the harassment? When someone is out there tarnishing your image you have the right to comment about it. >If you have the intelligence to work out how to do thing that you want to do (from creating templates to anything else that appeals to your interests) why do you appear to have such difficulty in learning the basic principles of editing Wikipedia? I never implied or said I have the intelligence. I am ware of my past mistakes, I just not fond of how you treat your fellow Editors and you are the one who started all this mess and even when the mess was resolved you want to bring it up here and cause more turmoil, I know your end game which isn't about civility compared to User:Faustian who showed me the utmost respect a one can be granted in the same talk page, so what is wrong with you? The qurstion should be directed at you, it is not as you have a history of INNOCENCE, a one look at your record show me how you have dealt with people. >It seems that you're WP:NOTHERE for anything other than what you want to push WRONG YET AGAIN, I'm here to improve Wikipedia and I'm indefinitely here to help, I'm here to push non-biased facts about history but you are characterizing me as pro-Ottoman? simply because of the Cossack page? With the same logic you espouse, creating the Polish-Ottoman war campaign-box, BY YOURS TRULY (me!), THAT WOULD BE some weird pro-Polish or Pro-Ottoman depending on your mood today?, I'm here to build an encyclopedia >nor do you feel any sense of embarrassment or remorse for being appallingly abusive to anyone who dares to question the quality of your input. What sense of embarrassment??? I'm pretty sure those are private thoughts, it's not my problem your view of the world and your inability to read my mind is not up to par and vastly different and on top of the influences by your hatred, anger and disrespect towards me. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >Not rocket science


 * Evidence of my innocence, User talk:Medeis you need to man up and apologize Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Man up and apologize"? Methinks the lady doth "But it doesn't matter even if I do everything in the world, you would find ways to disrespect me and show no regard, and then you come here asking WHY?" protest too much. μηδείς (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Or don't, nobody is forcing you, it is very good we have people like you spreading misinformation about other users, your quality is what makes Wikipedia great, please sir continue in your personal crusade you have against me without backing any evidence. >Methinks the lady doth "But it doesn't matter even if I do everything in the world, you would find ways to disrespect me and show no regard, and then you come here asking WHY?" protest too much. Methinks that wasn't a protest, that was a statement directed at people like you, no matter how many evidence I bring forth to protect myself from MISINFORMATION there will always be some disrespect from you and others, I mean I have already put down the rumor you have created about me in mere seconds, yet you are still here, if I have done that to you I would be banned, the soul standard is very clear. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >"Man up and apologize"?
 * Frankly, Alexis Ivanov, I don't care whether you're a newbie or a returned editor evading a block. Please stop leaving more and more messages on my talk page in order to 'prove' that you're innocent of something. What this ANI is about is your ongoing, relentlessly abusive, aggressive and disruptive behaviour, and the fact that you refuse to pay attention to any attempts to discuss the pertinence of your contributions but, instead, follow on with WP:WALLSOFTEXT constantly casting WP:ASPERSIONS, ethnic slurs, being abusive... the list of WP:NOTHERE goes on and on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You cared enough to believe in the rumors, as I said I'm from Narutopedia which I was there for one year and afterwards started to go on Wikipedia and established myself hear created a user page, talk page, sand-box to learn how to use the "edit source", so once I proved my innocence now it is "I don't care", thank you Iryna for believing in me and giving me a chance for my freedom and innocence, it is lovely having people like you who don't care and are ready to jump on the wagon. >Please stop leaving more and more messages on my talk page in order to 'prove' that you're innocent of something. Well I had to talk to you and prove my innocence, in your own talk page so you can understand the severity of the accusations lead against me. I wanted you to understand. >''What this ANI is about is your ongoing, relentlessly abusive, aggressive and disruptive behaviour, and the fact that you refuse to pay attention to any attempts to discuss the pertinence of your contributions but, instead, follow on with WP:WALLSOFTEXT constantly casting WP:ASPERSIONS, ethnic slurs, being abusive... the list of WP:NOTHERE goes on and on.'' Oh my sweet Iryna? Why you have to hurt my feeling like that, this is a personnel crusade started by Jeppiz becuase he didn't like the way Ali article was going on then afterwards came here accusing me of being POV pushing, even though there were people agreeing with me on the Ali page then stated stalking me around and editing behind my back and slowly putting a knife through me, and pretending innocent, and then you got Lazslo who had a personal issue with me on a picture placement of an article who wanted to come here and make his points and then called you so you can come here and fuel the fire while he left so you can continue doing his job and throw more misinformation towards me, I'm here to build an encyclopedia and make Wikipedia a better place. Also what ethnic slur did I use? I'm pretty sure you are Australian, I have nothing against Australian people, especially Australian of Ukrainian descent. I mean your community is well-established Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >Frankly, Alexis Ivanov, I don't care whether you're a newbie or a returned editor evading a block.
 * Also my dear Iryna you are accusing me of "Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children" in your WP:ASPERSIONS also your wall of text accusation is again wrong, how many I suppose to prove my innocence towards you. Someone in your age should understand this Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

How long will this go on? After being blocked by Bishonen and returning less than 24h ago, Alexis Ivanov has already violated WP:NPA umpteen times, including here on ANI, against (at least) Laszlo Panaflex, Iryna Harpy, Medeis and myself. The above accusation of me being on a pesonal crusade is yet another example. I think the WP:ROPE given to Alexis Ivanov is long enough already, the user clearly cannot cooperate with anyone. Jeppiz (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Also my dear Iryna... Someone in your age should understand this?" Enough is enough. GABHello! 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That was proper English etiquette, in what way was the bad? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur, enough walls of text from this disruptive/combative user. I've seen their sort "everyone is out to get me" ("and I will edit war and insult to show it") attitude too often. LjL (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ljl please, is there an arbitrary limit for the words I can express myself and defend my innocence? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, every post by Alexis seems intended to insult. After the block, the new strategy seems to be sarcasm ("Oh my sweet Iryna? Why you have to hurt my feeling like that"), martyrdom ("talking me around and editing behind my back and slowly putting a knife through me") and patronizing ("Someone in your age should understand this?") And all of that can be found on ANI(!) in just the last hour. Jeppiz (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Every post I made post-Block was as civil as possible, I can't help it that you have biased opinion on me and working on misinformation. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A conservative tally by me yields a whopping 16 examples of personal attacks and incivility, at minimum. All on this thread. GABHello! 21:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are those post block???? Please count again and you will find ZERO Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The block didn't say you are not allowed to defend yourself against accusation by other editors, or are you against freedom of speech and willing to censor me after blocking me? One editor went as far as accuse me of being a sock puppet, surely you will not sit idly and what I did was prove my innocence against you and others. >Alexis Ivanov has already violated WP:NPA umpteen times, including here on ANI, against (at least) Laszlo Panaflex, Iryna Harpy, Medeis and myself. I didn't violate any WP:NPA, and continued to be a civil editor, doing what I do best which is making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. >The above accusation of me being on a pesonal crusade is yet another example. Are you implying you have no problem with me, when in fact you stalked me on many Wikipedia pages after you got angry at me on the Ali and the Ali Quote pages which resulted on me being blocked. I'm here to prove my innocence and restore my freedom. >I think the WP:ROPE given to Alexis Ivanov is long enough already, the user clearly cannot cooperate with anyone. There is no rope, I have cooperated with many editors, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean I didn't. Hopefully you can open your eyes and see for yourself Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >How long will this go on? After being blocked by Bishonen and returning less than 24h ago


 * (ec)Oh dear, here we go again with a prime example of going beyond WP:NOTGETTINGIT to simply not even paying attention to any form of explanation. We've already been through the WP:ASPERSIONS bit. "ASPERSIONS" was alluded to by me here. Alexis Ivanov looked at the wrong paragraph and responded here, thinking that I was pointing to "Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children". I clarified "ASPERSIONS" here. Alexis Ivanov responded with this... and is still not actually paying attention to what "ASPERSIONS" means. As I've already observed, how does one even communicate with someone like this.


 * As regards asking me my age on my talk page, I'm not even going to go there because I don't think this person comprehends anything beyond their own myopic universe, therefore I hold no hopes of their being interested in why such things are a violation of Wikipedia's policies. (But, just in case, I'll point to WP:PRIVACY for his edification.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I paid attnetion to every accusation and misinformation you laid against me, someone of your age and tenure should understand how the world operates and simple misinformation could be met with defense of innocence by other users, I get everything you say, so now please don't censor me when I try to prove my innocence. >''We've already been through the WP:ASPERSIONS bit. "ASPERSIONS" was alluded to by me here. Alexis Ivanov looked at the wrong paragraph and responded here, thinking that I was pointing to "Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children". I clarified "ASPERSIONS" here. Alexis Ivanov responded with this... and is still not actually paying attention to what "ASPERSIONS" means. As I've already observed, how does one even communicate with someone like this.'' When I clicked on the link it gives me "Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children", I was also being civil and trying to congratulate on your birthday and may you live a long life, excuse me of being civil. I wasn't trying to annoy you at all, notice I didn't ask for your age. I was showing the utmost respect to a senior editor Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >Oh dear, here we go again with a prime example of going beyond WP:NOTGETTINGIT to simply not even paying attention to any form of explanation.

I asked Ivanov not to contact me further, this was his response, which I have moved here instead [Medeis]: >You came here as an established editor Nope, I didn't came here as an established editor, that is false, as I said I was using the visual editor for a year in the Narutopedia, that was my only knwoledge and in order to do a refrence in the Narutopedia, all you have to is post the chapter name and page and the volume, which is vaslt different in Wikipedia where you have the ability to use certain templates which I failed at, and botched the references to the book I was reading, I didn't have intention of vandalizing. If you wpuld stop spreading misinformation about me, it will much appreciated, here is the the first edit, notice the usage of the Visual editor and if you go down you will see I have no intention of vandalizing. I couldn't do the reference properly. And during my last edit on the page I fixed everything that I made wrong in the article >''Please do not respond here, it will be reverted. Instead, respond at the ANI if you must.'' That is why I'm here, in your talk page, to RESPECTFULLY ask you to not spread misinformation about me, I'm solely talking to you.Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have posted here to make sure you understand what you said about me was wrong and you have some intention to badmouth me, I have never seen you before on Wikipedia and suddenly you are throwing these accusation about me, so I went back to the NarutoPedia to show you my innocence and my knowledge of editing Wikipedia previously.

Vandalizing ANI
As if the 16 WP:NPA violation on ANI alone counted by GAB weren't enough, now Alexis has moved to vandalizing ANI as well. There seems to be a complete consensus among all users who have commented that Alexis is WP:NOTHERE, perhaps an admin could step in before this escalates even further? Jeppiz (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There was no vandalism, the sure was willing to accuse me of sock puppetry and then twist my words after I posted my evidence of innocence in his talk page so we can put this rumor behind us but he still standing and he will go of course UN-punished since you know it's okay to discriminate against the new guy and bullying is way to welcome new editors who are here to prove themselves innocent. WHICH I DID, in case you are interested, but as usual it will fall on deaf ears and I will be painted the monster I am, GREAT. Also the 16 WP:NPA are simply wrong, it means ZERO, post-block that you have manufactured against me  Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep going on like this when everybody can see for themselves exactly what you did? You removed part of the user's comment about you, and you completely rewrote another part. That is vandalism pure and simple. Jeppiz (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The other user intentionally misrepresenting my words to make it seem like as a "long unwelcome essay", how would you feel if someone accused you of doing things you have never done and then you posted on their talk page so they can understand how you are an innocent and then instead of that want they want you to be worse of and continue misrepresenting the words you were mentioning. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh stop it. The user had asked you not to post on their talk page. You did it anyway. Therefore, it was unwelcome. They moved it here. You maliciously changed what they had posted. You are not supposed to edit other people's posts like that. Are you trying to collect all possible breaches of policies? LjL (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

>You did it anyway. So where should I post my comment? Is there another talk page dedicated >''Therefore, it was unwelcome. They moved it here.'' And misrepresent my words by calling "long unwelcome essay", it's no surprise you are on his side, and willing to paint me as guilty. >You maliciously changed what they had posted. maliciously?? It was honestly > You are not supposed to edit other people's posts like that. I understand even if people lie at you and misrepresent your words you can't edit their words and User:GiantSnowman told me on my talk page and I never changed his misrepresenting words anymore. >Are you trying to collect all possible breaches of policies No do you have a personal vendetta against me???? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The where should I post it? That makes no sense, I want to speak with him one -on - one to tell him his accusation against me are wrong and post the proof of my innocence. It is hardly anything over the top.


 * This is going around in circles, and you keep adding more people to your list of people who in your opinion are "out to get you". The situation is pretty clear, despite your walls of text (but yes, I know, now you're going to add another wall of text saying "yes, it's clear, it's clear that everyone is out to get me blah blah"). Yawn. LjL (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right these people are trying to help me by spreading misinformation about me, I should be thankful. >The situation is pretty clear, despite your walls of text Is there an arbitrary number of words I should follow that limits my post on Wikipedia when responding to people's accusation about me??? I will gladly follow such rules? >but yes, I know, now you're going to add another wall of text saying "yes, it's clear, it's clear that everyone is out to get me blah blah"). Yawn. But no I didn't do that, because;e it's "it's clear, it's clear that everyone is out to help me blah blah". YAWN AND THEN burp Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >This is going around in circles, and you keep adding more people to your list of people who in your opinion are "out to get you".


 * I think Alexis Ivanov has been building a case against himself more effectively than the OP ever could have dreamt of. He's been given enough rope. Block already. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Could someone please hat this thread? I'd do so myself, but would prefer not to as I'm involved. blocked the user for one week on November 9th for breaching WP:CIVIL and WP:DE. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)  [EDIT] On second thoughts, I'm striking this request as I'd rather let it stand as is. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't get into my account
Hi, I am the user who up to yesterday edited as User:White Arabian mare. Last night when I logged on to edit a page, I discovered that I wasn't logged on. When I attempted to login, I kept getting a notice that my password was incorrect. I tried to open it literally 35 or 40 times, including this morning, and had no luck. I asked at the Village pump and Teahouse, and was told that possibly an admin with CheckUser could send me the password via talk page, allowing me to then log into my account and change the password at Special:Preferences. I don't have email, nor can I get it, due to a family situation beyond my control. I am just very upset and I know this is not likely to work out, but I'm hoping somebody here may know how to help me get into my real account. I'm especially upset that this should happen now, because I was getting ready to apply for autopatrolled rights. Thanks White Arabian mare alt (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is a legitimate query or not, as you could just be trolling for the password of another user. However, in the chance that this is real, you should know this this happened to me.  What I discovered is that several keys on my keyboard died, so to get the password correct from that machine, I had to use either a new keyboard or the onscreen character map utility to enter it in manually. Also, check your cookies are enabled. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Viri, I think this really is WAM, who I've kind of been mentoring a bit; she already asked what to do at the Teahouse and they sent her over here.  I think the inquiry is if there is some method that could be used to verify her identity and get a password reset other than the usual email method because she apparently doesn't have an email account (or has no access to the one used to set up her original account, or something) so I guess her inquiry is if the admins or checkusers have any other method by which she can recover or reset her password... (I suspect there isn't) or if this simply has to be abandoned as a compromised account.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  22:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * White Arabian mare, all that an admin with Checkuser privileges could do is check to see if you are editing from the same IP address now as in the past. But they don't run checkusers for requests like this and, any way, they wouldn't have access to your password so, at most, they could confirm that the two accounts are editing from the same computer. It wouldn't solve your problem. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh that is sad, it's a great username, and I liked the story of its origin on your user page even though it didn't mention The Summer of the Beautiful White Horse which you should certainly read if you haven't. Autopatrolled is no big deal and if you switch to a new username you'll probably be able to get it quickly if you want it.  I'd agree with Viriditas about making sure your keyboard is working etc.  Checkuser might be able to tell if someone changed your password in the past day and I think it would be reasonable for them to look for that.  If your two accounts edited from the same address, and the old account's password was changed from a different address, that would be evidence of a compromise.  In that case if you can't get your old account back, you could transfer the userpage contents to a new one, set up redirects, etc.  Stuff like this happens sometimes, and people occasionally like to change their usernames of their own volition for whatever reason, so you shouldn't think of it as a big disaster.  Of course if you can get it back, that's great. 173.228.123.250 (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this password unique to Wikipedia or did you use it elsewhere? If the latter then you may want to go check and change those passwords. We just had some accounts compromised because of hacked data elsewhere combined with poor password strength. To test Viriditas' theory, open a text editor (notepad) and type out your password to make sure that it is formed properly. Try pasting that in.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A checkuser could perhaps confirm that the alt account is confirmed to your main account to make sure you aren't an impostor. They might also be able to tell if someone else logged in from somewhere that you don't. If so then this account has probably been compromised.
 * The account is not compromised and the alternate account appears to be White Arabian mare. Unfortunately, we can't assist you with reseting your password as you don't have an email associated with your account. Double check that you're entering your password correctly. If that doesn't work, I'd recommend creating a new account and link it to your other account. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 02:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all help. This is my new account and I am about to go redirect my old user and talk pages to my new account. I chose a strong password and I don't know if that was the trouble last time, because I got hacked or what. Anyway, thanks. White Arabian Filly (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable words in edit summary
I guess doesn't want to be here too long (what a telling name) and he wrote this when reverting me:. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Editor blocked, edit summary hidden. Next time, you don't need to state the actual offensive wording (although I acknowledge it does speed things up). Regardless of the name, I don't think a checkuser is needed nor does the page need to be protected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay. I was thinking to not copy it but wasn't sure. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's 50/50 to me. There's no hard and fast rule. It was against you so that's fair but if the comment was naming someone else, there's a chance we may need to purge this page too of that which I've seen before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Fake Words as Redirects = Real World Consequences
Working through redirects I keep finding truly Wikipedia user invented words like Figurelessly which is a redirect targeted at Abstract art. Online dictionaries and mirrors copy these non-words and lists of nonsense redirects and turn them into definitions  that people take as real and start using online. Instead of Wikipedia reflecting and collecting knowledge, these BS redirects are over time introducing new wrongly constructed words into English. Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK...whenever you find a redirect like that, why don't you just tag it for Redirects for deletion? p  b  p  01:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

First, these are probably already under scrutiny per the Neelix case; there were a lot of these types of redirects created by a user who's now being examined at ArbCom. So it's likely they'll be disappeared shortly anyway. Second: Wikipedia is not responsible for what other websites are doing, nor are we responsible for changes in the English language. Third: "Figureless" is a perfectly valid word, appearing in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary; an adverbial form of this word is not entirely impossible. Fourth: Self-restraint and WP:CIV require me to repress my opinion of this concern. Seriously, this is the WP issue you find most pressing?GJC 02:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur. ANI can't really help here as there's no admin action needed here: the ongoing ArbCom case will handle whatever sanctions need to be handed out, the user requested his own desysopping, and redirect cleanup can be done through WP:RFD. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks
User:Mrandrewnohome was blocked indefinitely in August for posting controversial anti-semetic material at the reference desks in the guise of asking questions.diff

He created an admitted sockpuppet User:Hadlad90 to protest being blocked, then erased that socked comment form his talk page.diff. (See also the suspiciously overlapping Special:Contributions/69.121.131.137)

He was advised "The reference desk doesn't exist to engage in arguments. Your actual editing work is fine, that's not problematic but stop it with the controversial questions here."diff

Mrandrewnohome then promised "It won't happen again" and was unblocked.

He has not edited the project since then (under this user name), except to resume posting concern troll questions about anti-semitic material at the ref desks which he promised not to do ever again:


 * Nazi propaganda
 * Hi, does anybody know if it's possible to acquire a translated version of the May 1934 issue of Der Sturmer, with the headline 'Jewish world plan to destroy gentile humanity'

We have articles on Der Stuermer and Der Giftpilz indicating their anti-semitic nature. This site, http://www.gailallen.com/rv/rv-vol-01-iss-07.html referencing the first item is typical in asking whether or not Jews are actually by necessity racist liars and murderers.

Hence after two months we have the same user returning not to edit the project, but again to seek commentary on what he says is a "university project".

This is a longterm pattern:


 * Holocaust revisionism (a rambling essay)
 * This is not intended as a racist post, and racist opinions are not welcome on it
 * a prior argument at ANI that the preoccupation with anti-Semitism was based on a university thesis

Given the user has shown an ability to edit the project, but not to keep his promise to stay away from posting controversial questions on "Jewry" at the ref desks, I propose a narrow topic ban preventing posting any questions or comments at the ref desks regarding Jews and Nazism or related topics. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't know. I warned him about asking those types of questions and while yeah asking for Nazi propaganda is out there, there aren't questions being asked or anything argumentative or even a posting of something inflammatory. It is two requests for things that while untasteful, still do exist. I don't see any commentary here at all, just a description of where a source for those items could be found. I'm not comfortable that asking to find Nazi propaganda should itself be considered grounds for presuming that someone actually agrees with the propaganda especially when there hasn't been a response and there hasn't been any editing in support of those sources. As I note here, there is examples to be found in the works of a professor at Calvin College so it's possible to find good faith in the university study argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no request that questions about antisemitism be blocked.


 * There's a request that a user who seems obsessed with the topic and unable to keep his promises of "never again" to be held to the words under which he was restored: a request that an admitted sockpuppeteer whose first edits under his own name after being restored violated that promise be held to his word
 * And a request that someone who posts images and texts libeling Jews for being Jews and naming non-Jews as Jews be narrowly blocked from bringing up the topic of Judaism and Nazism at the ref desks.
 * See, for example, the user's post of this BLP violating image (The un referenced image names 3/4 of the media and government as at least crypto-jews, if not "worse") when he last promised not to post controversial "questions" about Jews under the guise of University projects.
 * It should be quite obvious that no real university student would be referencing such blatantly racist WP:BLP violations without motivation. And the user has not gone back to editing WP as promised;
 * He has gone back to bringing up libels of Jews.
 * μηδείς (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem before was WP:NOTFORUM issue and baiting questions at the Humanities desk. There isn't anything of that matter at the moment to me. Someone who wanted to seriously work on the blood libel page would want to look for Nazi examples of the material for a reference. As to whether or not any real university student would refer to that material, it is the actual study by a real academic so it is material that can be studied. My undergrad had numerous people who picked extraordinarily controversial topics like that and I'd rather deal with people interested in that by pointing them to academics who can objectively call it garbage rather than just topic banning and immediately going after any discussion on the topic. But that's clearly a minority viewpoint here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support indefinite topic ban from anything remotely connected with the "question" asked here. WP:AGF is wonderful but, particularly given the background, asking how to get a translation of the "Jewish world plan to destroy gentile humanity" is trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with that this seems like trolling more than posing legitimate questions. BMK (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban in the name of not feeding the trolls. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban, this is getting ridiculous. Weegeerunner chat it up 16:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. Would support indefinite ban if asked. Racism has no place here. Op47 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mrandrewnohome was notified of this discussion, but responded to me on my talk page rather than here. I advised him that he should respond at the ANI, and repeated my encouragement to him to edit productively, which he is eminently capable of and has done in the past. Perhaps Andrew would consider voluntarily promising to a topic ban? In any case, here is his comment on my talk page, and my response: "I know you think I'm a racist, but". μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for someone who is indistinguishable from a troll to repeatedly ask questions about Jewish plans to destroy gentiles. The user can use the topic ban as evidence for their third year dissertation to note that some online communities do not encourage such nonsenses. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Request Admin Comment do we need an RfC or some other sort of discussion to institute this proposal? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'd say any uninvolved admin can impose a WP:NOTHERE block. As to a topic ban, any uninvolved admin can impose an Editing restrictions such as that via a consensus of the noticeboard discussion here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, the usual Assume Bad Faith mentality from certain RD editors. Asking for the translation of an historic article is "obvious trolling". Spamming an antisemitic website on the other hand seems acceptable. Medeis placed that same link also on the talk page of the "accused". Does she think it is a WP:RS? <font style="color:DarkGreen;background-color:#FAFAFF;">Ssscienccce (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry,, but I don't really understand your comment. My concern is that the ref desks not be spammed with repeated antisemitic posts.  The uninvolved editors above seem to agree with this concern, while the OP has chosen not to defend himself.  I have explained that I don't want Mrandrewnohome blocked, but I do want him to stop posting antisemitic provocations at the ref desk.  This is rather simnple.  You come here and apparently cast aspersions at me, but you don't give diffs or links, so I am not really even sure what you are referring to.  So not only can I not explain myself (assuming you think I should), but I can't even understand the general point you are trying to make. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't bother. I've had enough of wikipedia. Won't be coming back <font style="color:DarkGreen;background-color:#FAFAFF;">Ssscienccce (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Continuous tag spamming by 96.5.241.159
I noticed School IP account yesterday that was endlessly tagging movie and book articles with the "Plot" tag, and after reviewing a large number his tagged pages I do not agree with the majority to the point that this looks like spam, especially because the IP is tagging several articles per/minute which indicates that they are not even assessing each article individually to properly determine what each Plot section really says. I think admins need to take a look at this and decide if it really is a disruptive crusade and maybe mass-revert if necessary as there are literally dozens. I left a message with the IP yesterday which was ignored and I notice messages have been left earlier in the year by other editors regarding the IP's continuous tag-bombing but it seems to have persisted, perhaps escalated to such a scale that it is now growing ridiculous. Thanks. 82.26.59.181 (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardblocked IP one year, Also indeffed BlackGator and Slivertiger779 which are socks of same. IP has been used to evade blocks. Enough of this nonsense.
 * I would be tempted to use mass rollback as the vast majority are tag bombings but that is something that should perhaps be discussed here first. After looking, I think the good edits-to-bad-edits ratio is too low to bother preserving any of their other edits. What do other editors think? Leave tags or rollback all?
 * I'm weakly inclined toward leaving the tags in place. If the film summaries are over 700 words, then technically they're in violation of WP:FILMPLOT at least and probably should be reviewed on an individual basis to see whether they can be shortened.
 * The underlying disruption is minimal in any case; it's easy enough to de-tag where appropriate, and if the articles are in violation of the guideline then perhaps it's ultimately a good thing that they'll receive some attention, even if the IP erred in handling the matter so carelessly. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The one I checked (Eat Pray Love) had a copyvio plot section. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. I should mention that WP:FILMPLOT is only a guidleline, not a policy. It can't always be possible to keep a plot under 700 words given the length and complexity of some films. I don't think many people will take the time to wade through the vast amount of articles tagged, I certainly won't be. Unless people have actually seen those movies or read the books they cannot know what information should be kept and what to remove so leaving those tags leaves an arduous task to a very small number of people and will quite likely never be achieved any time soon. It may have been better to remove the tags and put up with the minor inconvenience of a few over-long plots than a ton of sloppily tagged pages imho as nothing is technically "broken", the IP has just left an unnecessary mess for other people to deal with which I think was very unfair given that a lot of editors don't like the "media" side of wikipedia and don't want it turning into a second IMDB or a catalogue of films and albums given their non-academic or trivial status in an enclopedia they want taken seriously. 82.26.59.181 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It may only be a guideline, but it's also a widely-supported guideline which I believe most editors concerned with film articles feel is reasonable in almost all cases.
 * It doesn't matter whether anyone will take the time to wade through the tagged articles. The tags are minimally disruptive (how are they sloppy, exactly?), and if the plot summaries are in violation of WP:FILMPLOT, for instance, then I support either leaving them in or having a Talk page discussion where there's an agreement that exceeding the guideline is warranted.
 * Leaving the templates intact may mean they receive attention from editors who wish to improve them. Removing the templates will hinder that opportunity.
 * Could you please clarify how shortening plot summaries is an "arduous task"? I've been doing it for years, and while I sometimes hit a wall in terms of how short I feel a summary can reasonably be, I never found the process particularly burdensome. As for whether it can even be completed, I think WP:NODEADLINE covers that.
 * If the templates had actually been applied to summaries that were in compliance with the guideline, or if the templates were "louder" than they are, I'd see a more compelling case for mass-removal. As-is, while I think the IP handled the situation poorly, I don't see any hard evidence that their motives were bad or that their edits should be summarily removed simply because some editors don't want to see articles tagged even when they technically should be. This should be thought of as an opportunity to improve those articles. DonIago (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A guideline is still a guideline, regardless of how pedantic some editors are – you can't enforce a guideline as policy when it is not absolute policy. Law is law, guidance is guidance, period. There's no counter-argument you can make that can change that fact. WP:Policies and guidelines makes the difference clear. If a guideline is so widely-supported, as you say, that it may as well be policy then perhaps they should raise a motion to make it policy through consensus. Until that happens they don't have the right to demand anything of anyone, however strong their numbers.
 * I didn't say "shortening summaries is an arduous task". If you would care to actually read what I wrote I implied that the number or articles which tag-slap-happy IP tagged leaves an arduous task, as over 500 of the IP's edits are their "top" revisions, most of which are "plot" tags. But seeing as you're so comfortable with the idea of such a huge workload, I wish you luck in clearing the hefty backlog dumped on you. I don't think the attempt to tag so many articles was totally sincere. Looking at the IP's history you can see they were tagging 3 or 4 articles per minute. That doesn't show a genuine attempt to fully read and determine whether the wording of each plot summary was suitable, it is evidence of taking the 700 word count over the top and giving other people a ton of work they couldn't be bothered to deal with themselves. As I said in my first point, guidelines are not policy, they do not require strict adherence, they are not mandatory directives. The IP would have been more helpful if they had "fixed" the tagged articles themselves instead of going on a tag spamfest. It seems a pointless endeavour which appears to have annoyed other editors in the past, I might add, if you look at the IP's talk page. I think it qualifes as a form of WP:TAGBOMBING, though not several tags on one article, but one tag on many hundreds of articles.
 * I happen to find mid-page tags sloppy in their design, they break the flow of the page. I personally think that some types of tags, those which direct editors on how to make improvements, really should be "hidden" from general readers who are not logged in and only come to use wikipedia for reference. Wikipedia would be better off with a professional polish, having seperate "editor" and "published" views which hides section and inline tags from public view, making pages more readable. I don't see the point in having a Talk page per article to discuss faults if the articles are going to have massive template boxes plastered all over them which make the article look messy and undeveloped (i.e. sloppy). Why Wikipedia doesn't attempt to seperate the "staff" and development from the "audience" eludes me, articles would look a lot better if they simply displayed the data without showing edit-related tags which make them look like drafts.
 * As I implied before but will clarify again, I think that Film Project editors (including IPs who focus on films and such) think themselves too high-and-mighty at times, since so much film/TV media now fills Wikipedia, their operations tend to overrun Wikipedia and they push their own goals without extending much courtesy to Wikipedia as a whole, meaning toes do get stood on and the site suffers because editors who work much harder on more technical real-world articles tend to get less recognition and receive more frustrations for their efforts. Anyone can summarise a film or write about an actor using sources found via Google, but it is much harder to explain a medicine, describe a historic event, or translate physics and engineering into easily digested English. My heart goes out more to those who work on the genuinely encyclopedic side of Wikipedia than the fanboys (and girls) of films and celebrities on the trivial pseudo-encyclopedic side. 82.26.59.181 (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Cut'n'paste move
There's been a cut'n'paste move done by User:Sllynch70589 at Lenroy Thompson and Cam F. Awesome, which I presume will need an admin to fix. (It's clearly good faith work, so no criticism of the mover implied.) 823510731 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It needs a history merge, I think. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No idea how to use Wikipedia, however Cam F. Awesome would like to have Lenroy Thompson removed as that is no longer his name. He has legally changed his name and wants his Wikipedia to reflect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sllynch70589 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You should not have copied the material to the new location the way you did. For legal reasons, the article history needs to stay together. I have placed a request for a history merge, as it's something only an administrator can do, and I don't know how to do it myself. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Diannaa. 823510731 (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I made a request at Requests for history merge. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

LongDistance - copy-pasting
User:LongDistance06 (also active as User:Longdistance06) has persistently introduced straight copy-paste (or very minor adjustments to that) in a variety of articles about long-distance runners. I have warned the user about this on several occasions and had to remove the offending numerous times. The user has failed to respond to those comments and deleted them from their talk page, yet the behaviour continues.. The user has also persistently claimed false copyright on non-free images

I'm normally loath to report people, but this behaviour has gone unchanged for over 18 months now and without addressing this issue it will be a constant struggle to keep this user's additions free of copyright infringement. Any assistance is appreciated. SFB 00:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi SFB. I have issued the user a final warning and will monitor their contribs. Thank you for your work cleaning up this problem, and thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: BLP ban for User:Mabelina
has just demonstrated a fatal misunderstanding of how to edit BLPs: the editor used a reader comment below a news article to support a claim that a politician was "spending money like water" (link). After being told at BLPN that this was inappropriate, the editor actually reverted the removal and reinserted the claim with the dodgy source. Doing it once was bad enough -- but the reversion demonstrates a serious inability to edit BLPs appropriately, and I think an immediate topic ban is in order, at least until the editor can demonstrate understanding of why it was wrong. Added: the block log here is interesting; the most recent one was given for "being ineducable"... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I just wrote a detailed response which was deleted by edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabelina (talk • contribs)
 * (Edit conflict) Thanks for this User:Nomoskedasticity. I have been interacting with Mabelina at John Bickley (UKIP), Jim McMahon (politician) and Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015. Mablina is very polite and is likely acting in good faith. However, they consistently refuse to listen and engage in edit-warring. User:Frinton100 went to the effort of filing a report about this at WP:ANEW, however it was bizarrely archived with no response, which I felt was poor form. AusLondonder (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone could un-archive it or bring it here that would be great. AusLondonder (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support It is astonishing that a moderately experienced editor thinks that a single random anonymous reader comment following a newspaper article should be used as a reliable source in a biography of a living person. Even more astonishing is that this editor would revert the removal. This editor should not be allowed to edit BLPs until they demonstrate a solid understanding of what a reliable source is, and should be admonished to rely only on impeccably reliable sources in all their editing. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that the same editor has been edit-warring at Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015, including unsourced information, and refusing to accept the outcome of discussions on on the article's talk page. IDHT appears to have been the problem which led to previous blocks. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'd say a block is in order for such a blatant violation of [{WP:BLP]]. Also, a BLP ban is definitely in order. Further question, aren't BLP's subject to discretionary sanctions? Blackmane (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * My responses have three times been deleted in the last few minutes so I am having much difficulty answering my detractors - this in my view has led to a degeneration in relations although I note in above cases there was none to start with. I have been much engaged in Wiki Talk pages and discussions lately as suggested and prompted by AusLondonder and User:Frinton100  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabelina (talk • contribs)


 * If you are accusing people of deleting your responses, please give us diffs to support the accusation. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm having major difficulty even completing a sentence without experiencing edit war conflict so right now have no idea how to do the above although there is a wealth of supporting evidence - and shall deal with this tomorrow when such interruptions hopefully have died down. I have stated on numerous occasions about the need for balance in Wiki articles, which given my editing record should be self-evident, but when it comes to politics I seemingly become a target of vitriol abuse and criticism, told to "move on" and et cetera. None of the substantive points I make are given satisfactory reply yet I receive much hostility
 * , write your response in one of your sandbox pages where you can refine it without edit conflicts. Then copy it, and paste it here in a single quick edit. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cullen - I think am worn out by all this so while thanking you for suggestion still fail to see quite why so much aggression needs to be deployed just to get one simple article right - of course we both know that those watching my every move are ready to pounce whether I am right or wrong (and especially if slightly wrong) and would like to see me out of the game. Not sure if I think this is fair play, but no doubt others will draw their own conclusions once they review the welter of related discourse - thanks your help. M Mabelina (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just look at Mabelina as an initial point of reference - this will lead you to all relevant discussions. M Mabelina (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC) PS. this process is pretty hostile and has taken me so much time post virtually nothing - in a nutshell I want to see no one banned although by seeking balanced articles I seem to have become a target of hostility - why?
 * In my case, I support a topic ban because you tried to use a random anonymous comment following a newspaper article as a reliable source in a BLP. So far, you have failed to explain that egregious misconduct. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell it was to counteract another editor's claim that Cllr Jim McMahon is more important than senior government ministers. When I have tried to engage in reasonable discussion on the matter previously it has invariably ensued in massive & eventually unconstructive discussions as to what I was playing at without much positive result - please review this in detail, many tks. Happy to answer further as necessary - whilst stating that constant ambush by AusLondonder & Frinton has caused this contre-temps so no doubt they, a few others & Nomoskedasticity would regard it as success to see me banned, whereas all I want is for Wiki to be accurate and balanced. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't blame other editors for your decision to use a totally unreliable source in a BLP. So far, you have offered no explanation for your own behavior. This is not a game. Using a staggeringly unreliable source for a contentious claim in a biography of a living person is a serious violation of policy. Why did you think that source was reliable, and do you still think so, ? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My sources were & are totally reliable in this specific regard and you will see the same elsewhere. Perhaps you could tell me whether the tactics and style of ambush (which when satisfactorily answered - by me - end up with the retort "I don't want to hear any more") are in line with the spirit of Wikipedia? I don't think so. M Mabelina (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC) PS. in fact, look back over my edit history of this topic & note how selective the deleting process has been...

You are still yet to explain how you could remotely consider a comment at the bottom of an article a reliable source. Blackmane (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * well if balanced & equal right of statement are upheld values by Wiki, then this is easy to answer - there were many tweets introduced into the article about the UKIP candidate at the forthcoming Oldham W & Royton by-election which I challenged as to their credibility - causing yet another row & further round of hostile allegations - so simply put what I stated was several notches better by way of source material than was submitted and remained after much argument about another candidate in this election. More info as required? M Mabelina (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * by the way this is a superb example of my detractors (of which there are many - if you need further identification in this circumstance I should be only to happy to advise) causing enough distraction & erosion of trust, willingness and confidence in my contribution to Wiki that they might as well consider themselves to have won. It is not a nice "game" this one - not that I regard Wiki a game as someone else unhelpfully (from his point of view) suggested. Please let me know what further info you require. Many tks M Mabelina (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mabelina, what a strawman of an argument. The Tweets, introduced in the John Bickley article were Tweets by him, per WP:ABOUTSELF. However, they have been removed. I accepted their removal. That is a million miles away from what you did - introduce an anonymous comment from a news website making allegations, potentially of misconduct. You say above "My sources were & are totally reliable in this specific regard" - so are you saying you stand by the comment source? Regarding a potential block, I cannot endorse one. I witnessed the exposure of Neelix. I have followed the case. He has not been blocked. In this case, I think Mabelina acted in good faith but showed a lack of competence. I think Neelix acted in bad faith and showed a serious lack of competence. I view it as worse coming from an experienced admin. Any significant block would not be equitable, therefore. AusLondonder (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the idea that "equal right of statement", whatever that means, is a content policy on Wikipedia? Policy demands that every editor use only reliable sources in BLPs. The fact that you (weakly) continue to assert that a random, anonymous reader comment following a newspaper article is a reliable source demonstrates the need for a topic ban quite forcefully, . <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Topic ban from BLP's broadly construed. (eg: including anything related to living people in non-biographical articles.) Very non-compliant with policy and does not seem to understand why despite clear explanation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Topic ban from BLP's broadly construed, I'd be tempted to make it from political articles. Not only poor sourcing but a refusal to listen when corrected by the wider community,  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 06:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the helpful responses and please accept my apologises for reverting a previously deleted statement - particularly view its controversial nature - and shall also ensure I provide much more recognisable and creditable sources accordingly. Thanking you in advance for your understanding and looking forward to hearing. Best M Mabelina (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Support This is a tough one. There have been some completely bizarre edits over the last couple of days, especially the one that relied on the comments of one person on a local newspaper message board (what local council leader has not been accused of wasting money by someone on a local discussion forum?) and what can only be described as "Pamgate" where the name of John Bickley's wife appeared first as Pam then as Lesley. There is also a repeated trend with Mabelina (not just on BLPs, but seems to be worse there), of adding completely unrelated refs (e.g. ), or "see also" links. Given the latest spate of edit warring I plan later on today when I have more time to start another thread on the 3RR board and see if that gets any further. Failing that, I think I would just about support a fixed term ban (1 month to get us past the by-election) on BLP articles, though I can see that it would not address all of the problems.
 * And to Mabelina - you have been given two lots of instructions previously (now a third above by Cullen) of how to avoid edit conflicts. I do wish you would cease with this ridiculous notion that somehow your posts are being "deleted", or that there is a huge conspiracy trying to silence you. Edit conflicts happen all the time to everyone. Frinton100 (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Question If we're willing to TBAN a user for not understanding that citing user comments in any Wikipedia article is inappropriate and refusing to listen when corrected, why is this user allowed make such edits to any article, BLP or otherwise? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For reference, archived 3RR report here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive299. Bondegezou (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked &mdash; I had started to deal with the above AN3 report the other day, but the user had self-reverted their most recent revisions by the time I got to it + I got distracted by shiny things in real life and/or was tired&mdash;don't remember which. Anyway, apparently in the meantime they continued elsewhere, too, and given the extensive edit warring in the past + block history to make it obvious this is a recurring problem, I've gone ahead and blocked for a month and dropped a blp on their page. I'd suggest if this continues, regardless of the community decision here, that it be taken to arbitration enforcement for, at the very least, a 1RR restriction (if not, as is being discussed, a topic ban of some form).  -- slakr  \ talk / 11:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Slakr Thanks for looking at that again, I feel the decision was correct, sadly. And never let wikipedia distract you completely from real-life shiny things. Frinton100 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Goofy redirects as flavour-of-the-week
I just blocked User:Helmsman Tom Paris after he created over a hundred redirects to Urinary incontinence within half an hour (which was also not his first "clearly bot-like" batch to that target). DMacks (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So who deletes them? Is there a tool?  This is the fifth redirect spam in two weeks. Maybe detecting redirect spam should be a task for ClueBot. John Nagle (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They're all gone:) In some of his edit-summaries, he states "Pywikibot v.2", so this is clearly not some newbie. DMacks (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When did blocks start for redirect spam here? Legacypac (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the chronological question (timeframe when we first found this pattern of editors/edits) or the philosophical one (the basis for prompt and strong response)? DMacks (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No comment on the current situation, but the words "redirect spam" get thrown around far too much, with anything remotely resembling it being called "vandalism" and threatened with blocks. I created the article Takashina no Takako a few months back and added several dozen redirects for the woman's various alternate names and romanizations in accordance with WP:MOS-JA within about a half-hour, and the response was frankly ridiculous. We should all be a lot more careful about this than we have been. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that "Helmsman Tom Paris" is a Star Trek Voyager character, as was Neelix. I don't for a minute think that this is under another account, because frankly, there is no way he is that stupid. However, it wouldn't surprise me if this was an attempt to get Neelix banned for socking; similar MO, similar username. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 11:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just "of the week"?? A permanent affliction for some of us, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I am a sockpuppet of the redirect creation vandal. I will keep creating redirects until Nawlinwiki and Elockid are de-adminned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lets create sexual redirects (talk • contribs) 15:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked for obvious reasons.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good news this vandal is blocked. Neelix next? AusLondonder (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages
User:LightandDark2000 persistently uses obscure and unreliable sources as excuse for marking locations in Syria and Iraq to be under (mostly) Kurds control.

I wrote about one example at his talk page where he makred village Kusaybah to be under YPG (Syrian Kurds) and backing it up with a source that says nothing about the village itself, and it's not even remotely connected to the edit. I copied entire text in both given sources and prove that it says nothing about the village. Instead of answering with commnet, he reverted my comment and answered in summary. In the next comment on his talk page, another user is also warns him of the same problems saying ''Hi, you are editing the Sinjar map without using reliable and neutral sources, moreover you just broke the 1RR rule so please revert by yourself your changes before some admin will block you. Everybody is waiting for a fast ISIS defeat, but remeber that the map mus be edited only using neutral and confirmed sources'', which he also ignores and continues with his style of editing. Today, he started to edit Iraqi map and other users are already complaining. Please, help us bring this user to his senses. --Hogg 22 (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC) I described another issue with him here. --Hogg 22 (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, the problem is more general, deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria & Iraq modules. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50 and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4.

The mess he creates regularly take time to be cleaned. He injects in the maps his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the maps wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. In addition, and this is just the tip of the iceberg, yesterday and the day before (November 11/12), he edit warred on the maps breaking 1RR twice on each map:


 * Breaking 1RR twice on Syria map:


 * Edit 1 (part 1) Edit 1 (part 2) Revert 1 07:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit 2 Revert 2 23:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit 3 Revert 3 00:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Breaking 1RR twice on Iraq map:


 * Edit 1 Revert 1 11:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit 2 Revert 2 11:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit 3 Revert 3 11:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, you can notice that the articles on which the disruption occurred are subject to General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported had been placed on notice of the remedies in place. 82.123.241.127 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Moivaonhatoi.com ref spamming
Hey all, just a heads up on something I noticed—doesn't appear to be too pressing an issue, but I haven't looked too deeply either. I noticed users DaniellaeUS and ValeriaUS adding refs to a Vietnamese interior construction firm to Star Trek film articles. Looking at their contributions these seem to be their only contributions, and adding these sorts of spam to the EL had apparently persisted for the past year on several Vietnamese articles. Presumably there are other accounts with similar contributions (and similarly patterned names.) I've reverted all the spam Valeria added, and will look at Daniellae presently. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a problem. Special:LinkSearch turns up dozens more articles where Moivaonhatoi.com has been spammed. New accounts are created (here are a few more  ), links are added, and then the account is abandoned for a new one.  This link should be blacklisted.  Deli nk (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All the links have now been removed and I have placed a request for blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. There appear to be at least 17 registered accounts whose sole contributions were adding links to this website to multiple Wikipedia pages.  Deli nk (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I had already added to the blacklist as a result of this discussion - but I'll add the request to the log as well, and mark it as closed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit Conflicts
I recently made an edit on List of awards and nominations received by Madonna that I believed, and still do believe, is necessary information that benefits the article. Later I became aware that my edit was reverted by User:IndianBio and he accused me of vandalizing her page on my talk page. I later went to said user's talk page and questioned why he reverted my edit when it was 100% factual; I even had sources to back up my case. IndianBio later called me a "liar" and making "fancruft" when my sources cleared stated the information I presented. He then took our ongoing discussion and archived it immediately.

I would appreciated it if an admin could look over the information I presented and give it some consideration. IndianBio has made it clear that he would no longer like to talk to me, so I did not know what else to do. He once again accused me of vandalism this morning when I reverted his edit due to his lack of explanation.

Here is his/her reversion of my edit:. Any help is appreciated; I would love for this to be resolved. Her music did receive these awards. Carbrera (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, I added an ANI notice to the user's talk page, which you are supposed to do when bringing a discussion here. Also this appears to be a content dispute, and should be first handled on the article's talk page by both parties. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Crbrera, what exactly do you want? A star on your forehead or bravo that you finally understood this or the fact that you were explained umpteen times about this? —<font size="2" face="Courier New" color="#6F00FF">Indian:<font color="#FF033E">BIO  [ <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#1C1CF0">ChitChat ] 20:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And the fact that you continuously push this agenda of her music receiving the awards when official source from Grammys contradict the same thing goes on to show that I was right in calling your edits fancruft and I stand by it. —<font size="2" face="Courier New" color="#6F00FF">Indian:<font color="#FF033E">BIO  [ <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#1C1CF0">ChitChat ] 20:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You most definitely were incorrect in calling my edits "fancruft" because that term sounds like I'm completely pulling this out of the air with no sources to back myself up. Not only did I cite, but I also displayed correct information in the article, regardless of what you see it as. Instead of having a civil conversation, you lost your cool and got nasty with me. I'm not looking for a fight here, I'm only looking to increase the accuracy of Wikipedia articles to the fullest. Carbrera (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks primarily like a content dispute. We don't resolve content disputes here; see WP:DR for advice on that. On the other hand, if IndianBio had remained more civil throughout the discussion and avoided loaded terms like "cruft" and "vandalism" when describing good-faith edits, we probably wouldn't be here. I suggest this be closed and the two involved editors go to the dispute resolution noticeboard instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which Carberra should have already done per BRD, and I can see that he/she did that now in the talk page. —<font size="2" face="Courier New" color="#6F00FF">Indian:<font color="#FF033E">BIO  [ <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#1C1CF0">ChitChat ] 02:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hellow; this user dirupt my user page and move it and candidate it for speady deleation due to argument in arabic wikipedia so i am requesting blocking him for his vandalism---مصعب (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see that you have made any attempt to communicate with X-Kim about this action, or even to notify them of this ANI discussion. I suspect this is a simple mistake WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I dont know what is the approbriate page for notification but this user is taking my identity by editing links in my page in english wiki and link it to his page in arabic wiki. He told me in arabic wiki that he will still disturbing me and he do that by some vandalism to my userpage. Please see my user page. Thanks--مصعب (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you link to that conversation? Weegeerunner chat it up 16:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

here--مصعب (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Over the course of a few minutes, X-Kim Hip did some strange things to User:مصعب. Agreed. Perhaps it was malicious. Perhaps it was an honest mistake. I've notified X-Kim of this discussion. Perhaps they can explain themselves. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be advisable to get or someone else from translators available to investigate the veracity and accuracy of the OP's implications of hounding and impersonation. <font color="#19a0fd">S <font color="#66c0fd">n <font color="#99d5fe">o <font color="#b2dffe">w  <font color="#d4143a">let's rap 04:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Votestacking by User:Ireneshih
I warned User:Ireneshih that votstacking is against the rules when this user solicited votes from editors with a known stance on the notability of an article in the discussion of Nigma Talib article for deletion. I placed a notice on the user's talk page. Oddly this user denied the votestacking and then proceeding to directly solicit me on my talk page to vote on naturopathy related articles, which this user had nominated for deletion in quick succession: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. This feels like a trap.

I notice that this user had been investigated before for sockpuppetry, for which it was found to be seemingly compelling, but ultimately lacking in evidence. This user has also been flagged for COI notice as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta13C (talk • contribs) 10:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * AFD has been raised only for those pages with issues and lack of references from reliable sources. Since Delta13C, has been edits only on particular pages, related to naturopath, I have asked for his opinion and no case of WP:Votestacking. I have not asked for a page but for a field, where he seems to a master or editing a lot. I don't think asking for help on pages is Votestacking. Please review Help needed. Although activities only around a particular page of Delta13C seems to be suspicious, where other editors have also been involved. Please review Talk:Nigma Talib. I have seen his edits of warning other users without any real concerns, his contributions needs to be reviewed Contributions:Delta13C. (Pinging:User:GrammarFascist to provide more and unbiased insights) Ireneshih (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing votestacking in your diffs at all, (I corrected your first diff, as it didn't go anywhere). I'm seeing him ask for you to vote, but he's not saying how  you should vote, nor is he implying in anyway that you need to either support or not support the afd.   Votestacking would require , at the least, a non-neutral message, and I'm not seeing that. I see that this isn't  the first time you accused him of votestacking either .    Kosh Vorlon   17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarity, Kosh Vorlon  . Yes, it it not the first time I accused the user of votestacking because the user seemed to votestack twice, which occurred in quick succession, the second after I made the initial warning. Delta13C (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's canvassing, but I doubt whether it will be very effective. I wouldn't worry about it too much--the closing admin will know what to do. (I was tempted to go for a SNOW delete...) More irritating than the canvassing is the editor's tendency to challenge every single vote. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Ed veg
Resolved This user continues to remove KeepLocal templates from files after being asked many times to stop,[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=689961258] and after I even blocked him once for it.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AEd+veg] This user's contributions are generally appreciated, but he is not listening to polite and impolite requests to stop. I do not know how to proceed and would appreciate any input. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 13:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think escalating the block duration would be appropriate - two weeks this time. Kelly  hi! 14:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Might there be a language barrier? The user has made very few contributions of text in English, but I found this where the user added a minimal amount of text. The user has contributed slightly more text to Spanish Wikipedia (including edit summaries), although I fail to see how es:Especial:Diff/86668076 is a translation from English Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for your suggestions! I think I'll go with Stefan2's suggestion and try Spanish one more time before an escalating block. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

86.164.227.71
IP 86.164.227.71 is desperate to remove Cyprus from any classifications that place it in Western Asia as opposed to Europe, despite the fact that it appears in the United Nations geoscheme for Asia. This has led to edit warring across a range of articles, including Western Asia, Eastern Europe, Asian Games and Template:Lists of British people. The Western Asia article having been semi-protected, the IP has now resorted to editing other users' responses to their edit requests. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)‎
 * Geographically it's in Asia, not Europe. But it's in the EU, so does that override geography? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't override the fact that the UN classifies it as in Asia, which is what the IP was trying to change at Western Asia. Content disputes should be discussed on article talk pages though. My post here was about the user's conduct, including maliciously changing Cannolis's edit request response. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was shocked to see him actually falsify another user's response, let alone an admin. This indicates a serious breach of personal integrity. The IP user has made a short apology on the talk page, which is somewhat ameliorating, but this demands more explanation. I humbly suggest that he be sternly warned that further such behavior will result in some sort of ban. Musashiaharon (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is clearly a debate to be had about how best to describe Cyprus's geographical location, but the IP does not seem particularly interested in such a debate (with the exception of the discussion at Template talk:Lists of British people) and has continued to edit war despite clear warnings at User talk:86.164.227.71 and in edit summaries. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This debate can never really be resolved because there is no "Europe" geographically, it's a social and historical construct. In the Western world we count 7 continents, but that's far from globally accepted.  From the standpoint of geography, Europe is basically a peninsula of the Eurasian continent. BMK (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * True. But Cyprus has Asia to the north, east and southeast of it. So it's more Asia than anything else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The user is not being discussed here because of the content of his edits. He's being discussed due to his disruptive editing behavior. He has been edit warring on many pages against consensus, and has falsified an administrative decision to suit himself. The fact that he happens to have an agenda pales beside these breaches of conduct. Let's stay on track. Content discussions belong on the article talk pages, not here. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just call it a Mediterranean nation and leave it at that. Jeezus Blackmane (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit at Cosmo Wright
I'm asking for additional review of my edit at. because I reverted an edit due to the BLP concern, then also protected the page due to the apparent edit warring over the BLP issues.

It appears the subject has legally changed their name. However, several statements are being added which are unsourced or only link to the subject's own website (which require interpretation). From what I can see, the claims being added are likely accurate; but without reliable sources, there are unresolved BLP concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks okay to me. Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced BLP content like that and then protecting (or vice versa) is standard practice. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Endorse revert and protection. The reverted edit was to the effect that a named person "came out as transgender" with citation needed included in the edit, and no source. That's an edit that obviously must be reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree, but why full protection rather than semi-protection? Looks like the edit warring was coming from IPs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd support semi-protection, but not necessarily full protection, of this article per the above concerns. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 01:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete these pages
Please delete these pages that were created banned users. G5 any page created by a blocked or banned user is a violation of that block or ban


 * - created by
 * ‎ - created by JaJa0N11
 * - created by JaJa0N11
 * - created by
 * - created by

also delete these redirects G5 by a banned user:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tummyusuid (talk • contribs) 19:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - created by Brj312JXa0An1mO
 * - created by
 * - created by Brj312JXa0An1mO
 * - created by Brj312JXa0An1mO
 * - created by Brj312JXa0An1mO
 * - created by Brj312JXa0An1mO
 * First things first, I have taken the liberty of blocking your sock account. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, only MVP Sports Stars was created by a confirmed sock of (RbAxM33320). None of the other accounts are definitively linked to any banned or blocked users. clpo13(talk) 20:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I lied. See Sockpuppet investigations/Ericl. It's socks all the way down. clpo13(talk) 20:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looked like turtles to me. BMK (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with that user. I've also blocked User:RjTa0m3Yu10D, who suddenly wanted to recreate these pages. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Nick-D
Administrator Nick-D said, in this edit, that my "editing has consistently had a Nazi fanboy tone" and "the editors who you claim to have "collaborated" with have largely been putting up with you and been trying to minimise the damage you've been causing". Also in this edit, he wrote "fuck off facist" in his edit summary. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is potentially quite problematic for Wikipedia that an editor who self-identifies as fascist and pro-Nazi is such a major contributor (sometimes even "owner") of articles related to WW2. I have indeed noticed the same not-so subtle bias in some of your article work related to Nazi history, that Nick-D and others are mentioning. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed that userbox after a few emails with a friend, and its certainly not any more controversial than people who identify as a communist on Wikipedia. I have also had friendly conversations and exchanged advice with people who identified as a communist on Wikipedia. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is not that the identification in itself is offensive, but that that someone who identifies like that should not have a disproportionate hand in writing our content on those topics, for reasons I think are obvious and which have to do with wikipedia's integrity.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's like me saying you should not edit such articles either because you're an anti-Nazi -- and that doesn't make any sense! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact that about 99% of the world and 99% of literature about WW2 is "anti-Nazi". Also I am not suggesting that you be topic banned here, but I do think that given your expressed identification you should expect an extraordinary amount of scrutiny of the neutrality of your edits related to WW2. In the past you have not exactly reacted very well when neutrality or sourcing problems have been pointed out to you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The winners get to write the history books. Bobby Tables (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted my "fuck off" comment, and replaced it with a politer request that you not post again on my talk page . As your editing has had a Nazi fanboy tone in my view, and you've self-identified on Wikipedia as being a Fascist and complained about Wikipedia having an "anti-fascist" perspective  you need to live with the consequences. I'd also note here that you've recently complained about my edits being "anti-Nazi"!   Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, because neutral point of view is demanded by Wikipedia when editing this encyclopedia. DUH? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Given Jonas' own frequent outbursts of "Go suck a dick" or "suck it " whenever someone criticizes him, the fact that he comes running to ani over this seems a little petulant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't use language such as "go suck it" whenever someone criticize me. Yes, I've had such outburst, but not whenever someone criticize me. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * True, perhaps "not infrequent" would be more accurate than "frequent". But certainly, anyone who can dish it out should be prepared also to receive it in kind. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)It strikes me that Jonas Vinther is trying to distract editors from the fact that his behavioural problems are currently being scrutinised above. No, at Wikipedia the hand is not quicker than the eye. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I responded to the case above in which I'm involved and said what I had to say regarding that. It has nothing to do with this complaint. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Let me get this straight. Jonas Vinther quits Wikipedia, complaining that WP is "anti-fascist and pro-democratic" and claims that "99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap", but considers it a report-worthy insult to be called a Nazi supporter? Jeppiz (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just interested in NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW when it comes to history. If Wikipedia had been pro-Nazi and anti-democratic, I would have complained about that. Understand now? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But your idea of what is "neutral" is frequently more positive towards the Nazi perspective than the reliable sources. In wikipedia "neutrality" is achieved when the article reflects the perspective of the reliable sources, not when all perspectives receive the same degree of positive attention.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I mentioned on Nick-D's talk page, go ahead and list ONE article addition by me that's "frequently more positive towards the Nazi perspective than the reliable sources". You won't find one. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think for example your own statements about "99% of all Hitler related documentaries" being "anti-fascist propaganda" shows that your evaluation of what is neutral in relation to WW2 coverage differs from the mainstream view.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a reasons that was posted on my userpage (and not article space). The fact that I've never made any pro-Nazi edits to articles says more about my contributions. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then how come Nick-D noted this before even knowing your political selfidentification?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think he did. Think it's something he said "in the moment". Perhaps to boost his argument. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that you had described yourself as a Fascist until yesterday, but it's consistent with the general impression I'd got of your views from seeing your editing over time and the various discussions concerning it. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral observer here: let's see some diffs of the content skewing.  If what editors are saying about Jonas Vinther is true, it should be addressed with a topic ban.  If it is not true, then they should refrain from casting aspersions.  Either way, the proof is in the diffs.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Proving long-time subtle pov-skewing takes a very long time, and cannot easily be done through simple diffs. It often involves selection and exclusion of sources, subtle wording choices, exclusion of critical views, etc. none of which is easily demonstrated in a diff. Generally it requires an extensive qualitative analysis of an editors body of contributions made by someone with adequate knowledge of the sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not made any pro-Nazi edits to any Nazi-related articles anywhere on Wikipedia. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not consider myself sufficiently conversant with the WW2 literature to allow myself to have an opinion on whether you have or not. But it seems to me that Nick-D is someone who knows the literature, and for that reasons his taking exception to your edits means something to me.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I don't think that taking someone else's word is acceptable when it comes to whether I should be topic-banned or not. That is, only if you intended to vote. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above I am not in favor of a topic ban based on current evidence. But I am in favor of close scrutiny of your contributions for neutrality, and I think it is very important that you find a different way of reacting when other editors express neutrality concerns than either yelling "suck a dick", retiring and then coming back or complaining at ani that such concerns are personal attacks.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with maunus: Jonas' editing is to promote a fanboy style POV which tends to emphasise the more "glamorous" aspects of the Nazi regime and provide simplistic accounts of their crimes (I'm using "fanboy" rather than "sympathiser" or similar quite deliberately), and doesn't lend itself to killer diffs. One way Jonas has done this is by adding quotes from Nazi figures portraying their views in isolation. A good example is that in June 2014 Jonas added a prominent quote to the Adolph Hitler article in which Hitler claimed that the Holocaust was being conducted to balance Germany's war casualties . Jonas removed this in September 2014 following this talk page discussion in which I and several other editors expressed concerns that it misrepresented Hitler's actual motivations. However, a few days ago Jonas proposed re-adding the quote to the article in Talk:Adolf Hitler. Another example is the Adolf Hitler's reasons for invading the Soviet Union article he created comprising only a public statement made by Hitler. When revising the Operation Barbarossa article Jonas also gave relatively little attention to the massive war crimes which motivated the invasion, and took place during it. Reviewing the archives of Talk:Adolf Hitler and Talk:Operation Barbarossa provide examples of Jonas' editing style and the concerns raised by other editors. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's it? That's your arguments for my topic ban? Geeeezus!!!!! First of all, I proposed including the Hitler-about-the-Holocaust quote after stumbling upon it. This was rejected, which I accepted, but than another editor made a point, stressing that you were making this decision based on your own point of view, and I then asked for the opinion of others. Regarding Barbarossa, I never deleted any war crimes-info. I simply cited and reorganized info that were already there. And keep in mind, I was one of many to work on that article WHICH IS NOW OF GA-STATUS. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They're a few examples to illustrate my concern. I should have also included mention of the Anti-Nazi Propaganda article you created, which asserted that "Anti-Nazi propaganda also known as Anti-Hitler propaganda is a term used to describe misleading or incorrect information about Adolf Hitler's life and career in order to create a deep hatred for Hitler and extreme right-wing politics. Anti-Nazi propaganda is commonly used in popular Hitler and World War II documentaries." which is an obvious example of you including your personal views in articles given what's on your talk page. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I created the article based on Kershaw's 2008 comments -- where he uses the phrase "anti-Nazi propaganda". Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No you didn't - most of the content of that article was your views. The material on Ian Kershaw was a very small part of the article, and there's no way that he would have endorsed the definition you gave for the term. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban on Jonas Vinther due to non-neutral, extremist POV pushing. Or to put it another way: "You still think swastikas look cool. The real nazis run your schools. They're coaches, businessmen and cops.  In a real fourth reich you'll be the first to go. Nazi Punks Fuck Off." Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, I have never made any "non-neutral, extremist POV pushing" edits to any Nazi-related articles. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a huge leap to go from questioning whether an editor is biased on a certain subject area to accusing them of "non-neutral, extremist POV pushing" without any presentation of evidence that this is the case. Topic bans should not be applied based on emotional reactions to a subject. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Liz, it is unfortunately not a "huge leap" at all. History and experience has shown us that people with very strong views -- especially extreme ones --are generally unable to put them into their back pockets when it comes to editing.  We see it here day after day. BMK (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't see how all this is working to improve the encyclopedia. Emotions have been running high for some and a step back should be taken and Jonas, it is time to drop the stick; this will only boomerang in the end. I don't say this to be "against you"; but I have seen others go down this path over the years and it does not end well. With that said, I am done with my comments on this matter. Kierzek (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Jonas insists on his user page that mainstream history of the Nazis is wrong, and that only he knows the TRUTH about his hero Hitler. If that's not grounds for a topic ban, I don't know what is.  Insisting that reliable sources are wrong about the Nazis is evidence that Jonas is unfit to edit in this area.  No emotions required.  Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're completely wrong. I only claim that BBC and ABC documentaries on Hitler-related subjects is non-neutral. Claiming that Hitler is my "hero" is a major personal attack. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that the editor in question is an expert in sleight-of-hand. Hitler was pretty good at it too. For a while. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never heard about Hitler being a "sleight of hand expert"??? What point are you making? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He tricked his people into thinking embracing Fascism and murdering Jews was a good idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's inappropriate to go on WP:WITCHHUNTs. I do, however, take exception to editors who are already the subject of a thread open a new thread that smacks of being a counter-attack against a party to the original thread (even if not directly). It was not a wise move and I'd suggest that Jonas ask to have it closed at this point in time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support period of mentoring Jonas, back in may we had a very full and frank exchange of views via email about your use of userboxes. Back then you explicitly assured me that the Nazi ideology was abhorrent to you, and you mentioned your Christian beliefs. I still want to believe you. I sincerely believe that the full import of the horrors of that period have not fully sunk in yet, in your political and philosophical development. You are a young man. I believe that those slick, well produced wartime German newsreels and all the superficial paraphenalia of the Nazi image fascinates you. I put that down to political niavety. I also believe you have an authoritarian streak which will hopefully mellow over the years you still have in your personal development. I am concerned that there has been recent new issues surface however. I do hope you are aware that I quite openly self identify as Jewish around here. I think you should accept a period of mentoring in terms of the material and methodology you adopt in Nazi - related subject areas. I think it was unwise to come here Jonas. Simon Irondome (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's obvious to me that everyone (except for "Gamaliel" and "Liz") who have commented so far has a personal grudge against me and trying to bully me into submission, as demonstrated by Baseball Bugs. Well, it's not going to work. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also Simon, friend, it hurts my feelings to see you believe that I'm a Nazi because I'm being accused of such. Not ONE edit to any article, indicating that I "see Hitler as my hero", has ever been produced. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-read what I said Jonas, and reflect. Do I claim you are a Nazi? No. Do I claim you are fascinated with the Nazis but your political maturity will hopefully grow? Yes. Irondome (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In which case, he can edit those topics when his political maturity allows him to edit in a non-POV fashion. BMK (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban - I dunno, mebbe I'm just an old fashioned stick-in-the-mud kinda guy, out of step with the modern ethos of "everyone gets to do their own thing", but I don't think there's anyplace on Wikipedia for a pro-fascist, pro-Nazi editor whose editing reflects their disgusting political opinions. I can't imagine what I would feel if I was Jewish (or homosexual, or Romanii, or Slavic, or the parent of a mentally disabled child) if I were to come upon Jonas Vinther's editing. Mentoring is not enough, the guy has been here for 2 years ans has 20,000 edits, he's no newbie in need of having his hand held. He clearly knows exactly what he's doing, and has declared himself, what his vile political stance it. I'd say get rid of him entirely, but I'm willing to see if his edits in other areas can manage to be unbiased. If not, then we can indef him. BMK (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban This has got totally silly. Jonas Vinther keeps stating his retirement and then comes back after a few days - how crazy is that? I suggest that anyone checking his editing history, will observe his facist sympathies - rather that a neutral point of view. He is not here to contribute to a neutral Wikipedia, but to promote his own agenda. David J Johnson (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the last Goddamn time.... Where is the evidence that I have EVER made any non-neutral edits to Nazi Germany-related articles? PLEASE, link the diffs for everybody to see. To repeat myself, YOU WONT FIND ANY! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When you say "price" do you actually mean "prize"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I officially give up and retract my report against Nick-D. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Jonas, explain your rationale for the deployment of the Hitler quote re the Holocaust that Nick linked to above.. What purpose does it serve in the context of the section. I find it very disturbing. Irondome (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, if this is the quote in question, Vinther should be praised for posting info that shows what an evil human being Hitler was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply looked at it as being relevant to the article, but I'm done explaining myself. And Simon, I don't look at you as a friend anymore and therefore don't really care about your attitude towards me. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 01:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The quote actually under-states Hitler's evil considerably. The Holocaust was planned and conducted as cold blooded murder, and wasn't intended to be an act of revenge. There are no quotes from Hitler which accurately reflect his full motivations as he was very careful to avoid this being recorded - historians have needed to piece together his motivations from fragmentary evidence. See for instance for examples of Hitler's comments. Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The quote is both a grossly-rationalizing lie and an irony, since it was he himself who sent his country's young sons to their deaths in his ego-driven war, thus creating the alleged ethnic imbalance he was complaining about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already said I officially retract my report against Nick-D, continue discussions about the quote on Hitler's talk page or something. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)